Featured Articles

Quasi Crypto-Jews #1 Kenneth Stern: Expert on Hate and Holocaust

Many Jews are in positions of overt power and influence, such as those placed throughout the current Biden Administration, or those on the Board of Trustees of the globalist hub World Economic Forum. They have names with which we are familiar, such as Larry Fink, Anthony Blinken, Rachel/Richard Levine, Merrick Garland, Janet Yellen, Alejandro Mayorkas, Jeff Zients (Chief of Staff for the mentally disabled Biden; he recently replaced Ron Klain), David Rubenstein, Mark Benioff and many others.

Other Jews however are not as prominent, and we are not likely to know their names. Their power and influence may nevertheless be considerable, and so a careful study of their identities and activities may serve to inform our self-defense. These Jews may not be considered Crypto-Jews in the classic sense, since they are not intentionally hiding their Jewish identity, nor particularly self-suppressing their presence as Jews in our society. In a lesser way their lack of prominence can act as a cover for their harmful influence among unsuspecting people. Exposing them can only help our cause.

 Early Influences and Training for an Anti-White “Hate” Expert

One such Jew who has and is wielding considerable influence in key areas is Kenneth Stern. He is the current Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, part of the Human Rights Project at Bard College in New York, from which Stern graduated in 1975. Let us examine the extraordinary career trajectory of this Jewish “expert” on hate, extremism, intolerance, anti-Semitism, holocaust denial—with never a focus upon abuses of Jewish power.

Stern graduated with a law degree from the Willamette University College of Law in Oregon in 1979 and immediately became managing director of his law firm, Rose and Stern until 1985. His most notable case during this time was as trial and appellate counsel for Dennis Banks, co-founder of the American Indian Movement. We may suppose Jews supported the American Indian Movement for the same reasons they organized and funded the NAACP, or today’s Black Lives Matter: using racial minorities as cannon fodder against White Christian society. Genuine concern for the struggles of American Indians would be far from Stern’s mind. Other notable cases included defending Portland Oregon’s homeless population against an anti-camping ordinance, and representing plaintiffs Jack and Micky Scott in a $7 million defamation suit against heiress to the William Randolph Hearst media fortune Patricia Hearst. Stern had high-profile cases at the beginning of his career.

Stern was Director of the National Organization Against Terrorism in Brooklyn during 1985–1986. During the period from 1979–1988, during which Stern was Director, all recording of terrorist attacks on Americans stated the perpetrators were “militant Islamic extremists.” This included Israel’s enemies Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iran. According to the timeline, the Israeli Mossad, Shin Bet and IDF committed no acts of terrorism during this period.

For the next two years Stern was the environmental enforcement counsel of New York City’s Department of Sanitation. Private commercial waste removal in New York City has long been a notorious operation of the Mafia or “Cosa Nostra,” increasingly including the Jewish Mafia. An extensive report addressing such organized crime by the New York State Environmental Conservation Committee was published in 1987, during Stern’s time as counsel to the City’s Sanitation Department.

Stern was a member of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists from 1983 to 1988. He married Marjory Slome, a Rabbi, in 1989. Thereafter, Stern’s career as an expert on anti-Semitism, hate and holocaust denial blossomed.

“Hate” and “Anti-Semitism” Expert

From 1989 to 2014 Stern was a specialist on anti-Semitism & extremism of the American Jewish Committee in New York City. He was expert on anti-Semitism, extremism, and hate groups, and was a spokesperson.

The “About Us” section of the New York Chapter of the AJC states:

In advancing the goals of the American Jewish Committee in New York City, the New York Chapter works to support the State of Israel; combat anti-Semitism; and build bridges both within the New York Jewish community and with outside partners, including diplomats, government officials, and leaders of other ethnic and religious communities. Our objective is to promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as advocate for communal and public policies that safeguard the Jewish people and advance the causes of civil rights and social justice.

During this 25-year period of Stern’s advocacy, he testified to Congress, appeared at the White House Conference on Hate Crimes in 1997 during the philo-Semitic Presidency of Bill Clinton, and studied and reported on the “militia movement,” “bigotry” on campus, “hate speech” on radio and internet, and was instrumental in making such concepts familiarized in society.

At the Conference on Hate Crimes, Clinton said “As part of our preparation for the new century, it is time for us to mount an all-out assault on hate crimes, to punish them swiftly and severely.” The Conference attempted to define “hate crime”: “A hate crime is the embodiment of intolerance — an act of violence against a person or property based on the victim’s race, color, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.” While no specific mention is made of Jews, nevertheless “Participants attended a closing reception at the United States Holocaust Museum.”

Stern appeared on Face the Nation, Crossfire, Nightline, Dateline, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, and National Public Radio, among others. (We must not confuse him with the Ken Stern who worked at National Public Radio from 1999–2008, becoming CEO until ousted in 2008; he appears to be German.) I could find no transcripts or video archives of Stern’s statements on these major media outlets, but we can know his views from other sources.

Author of the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism”

In 2004 Kenneth Stern was the “lead drafter” of the “working definition of anti-semitism,” according to Stern’s own essay in the Guardian of December 2019. Analysis by Peter Ullrich’s “Expert Opinion On The ‘Working Definition Of Antisemitism’ Of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance  “reveals severe deficits.” It is “inconsistent, contradictory and formulated very vaguely. It therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a good definition.” Stern’s definition states:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

So, “hatred toward Jews” is anti-Semitism. Or “non-Jewish individuals” too. Vague indeed. An anti-Semite used to mean someone who hated Jews, but Stern has helped make it mean someone whom Jews hate. The greatest criticism of the definition is of the eleven examples that accompany it. Seven of the eleven examples relate to the nation of Israel, criticism of which on a number of key points is to be considered “anti-semitism.” Let us consider all eleven examples:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Ample criticism and denunciation of these examples makes it unnecessary for us to denounce them here, except to say Kenneth Stern was central to their formulation and application. Obviously they confer special protective status to certain Jews and all Jews generally, and to the nation of Israel, exonerating it from its ongoing heinous crimes against humanity. The British Labour Party’s refusal to accept the full definition and examples created an immense scandal, and eventually the Labour Party collapsed under its own Semitophobia and adopted the definition. If there was one man responsible for the great furor and fuss that erupted when the new definition was introduced in 2005, it was Kenneth Stern.

Holocaust Promotion, Holocaust Protection

As is evident, two of the examples address that epitome of Jewish suffering and specialness, the holocaust. They amount to “holocaust denial” and accusing Jews of lying about it. Stern acted in vigorous defense of the holocaust when he wrote in the preface to his 1993 book Holocaust Denial (“one of the first to target holocaust denial”):

The history of anti-semitism emblazons one truth above all others: lies that promote Jew-hatred must never be ignored. Holocaust denial, though ridiculed today [1993!], has the attributes to become a potent form of anti-semitism. (p. xi)

It also had the attributes to be a potent form of truth, but Stern has worked to distort and subvert that truth over the decades since Holocaust Denial was published. To Stern, truth is dangerous to Jews, and he is a staunch defender of Jewry. “Holocaust denial is not about historical truth. It is about anti-Jewish hatred as part of a political agenda—and must be confronted as such.” (p. xii) Strategically it is advantageous for Stern and holocaust promoters to steer the debate away from historical truth. Here we may not plunge once again into debate over the veracity of the holocaust story, so to conclude this aspect of Stern’s influence, we will consider why holocaust promoters such as Stern avoid debate:

First, Jews, historians and others of goodwill have to make clear why we will not debate deniers [hint: it is not because they will lose]. Second, we have to expose the disingenuousness of the deniers’ insistence on debate. Professional deniers are not holocaust scholars, but anti-semitic imposters with a neo-Nazi political agenda… (p. 59)   

Essentially, don’t engage in scholarly debate, but dismiss with ad hominem attacks. Of note, Stern’s book release was timed to the opening of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. Stern says his book is intended to “increase awareness of the Memorial’s lesson: that genocide is always possible if people are complacent about hatred.” (p. xii) At the time Stern was Program Specialist on Anti-Semitism and Extremism at the American Jewish Committee.

International Influence

By 2000 Stern entered into wider prominence internationally through his role as special advisor to the defense in the David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt trial. This was the most high profile holocaust case since the Ernst Zundel trial in Canada in 1988, and would supposedly determine not just the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story. And it would also be a landmark case about whether it could even be debated into the future. Irving chose to represent himself without professional counsel, and to his great misfortune (literally bankrupted by the $2 million award against him), and the misfortune of all revisionist historians thereafter, he lost.

Deborah Lipstadt, defendant, went on to become today’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism at the U.S. Department of State. Irving continues to publish his magnificent works of history, particularly regarding the Third Reich and National Socialist leaders, but struggles with poverty and marginalization, his speaking events held in virtual secrecy before small committed audiences to avoid violent protests, and infiltrated by monitors to ensure Irving’s self-censorship. Kenneth Stern’s “special advice” to the defendants helped ensure this sad and tragic verdict.

In 2001 Stern was appointed to the United States delegation to the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. These forums began in 2000 and went through 2004. The first forum was titled “Education, Remembrance and Research on the Holocaust.” One compelling reason to hold the forums was a Swedish study which showed “that knowledge among young people of the Holocaust was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place.” The first forum established the general predominance of Jews as the primary victims of “intolerance,” a theme that was realized in a book summarizing all four forums, titled Beyond the ‘Never Agains’. The 2001 forum which Stern attended was titled “Combating Intolerance” and focused on contemporary issues, especially “anti-semitism” in the modern world. This forum .”..aimed to increase collaboration between individuals and organisations at all levels of interaction — local and national, as well as regional and international.” Stern’s influence thus went international.

The 2001 forum, which occurred in late January, many months before 9-11, issued a Declaration with 10 points of commitment. All are worth considering in the context of today’s anti-White, “woke,” multi-racial world, but number 10 will suffice:

As we begin the new Millennium, we offer our support to those affected by and vulnerable to all forms of intolerance. The memory of those killed by violent racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance will remain vivid in our minds as we make a world where intolerance has no place, where all human beings are respected and equal in dignity, and where all societies are inclusive. In the name of justice, humanity and respect for human dignity we pledge to continue combating all forms of intolerance and to do all we can to bring about a world of inclusive societies speedily in our day.

Whatever contribution Stern had to this commitment statement, it is consistent with Jewish ingroup strategies to create multi-racial societies where Jews can more freely extend Jewish power at the expense of Whites. One wonders if the 2003 forum was canceled because “Neo-con” Jews and Zionists were preparing to launch the war on Iraq on behalf of Israel though fought primarily by the U.S. military. Jewish intolerance of Arab Iraqis killed by violent Zionist racism would violate their commitment to the forum’s #10 statement. “All human beings are respected and equal in dignity,” would still apply to Iraqis lying in pools of blood shredded by U.S. drone strikes instigated by Zionist Jewish “Neo-cons.” So would IDF strikes on helpless Palestinians in their open air prison of Gaza. Thus perhaps it was inauspicious to hold a forum in 2003.

Publications on “Hate” and “Antisemitism” by the “Expert”

By 2006 Stern published Antisemitism Today: How It Is the Same, How It Is Different and How to Fight It. He concludes his Foreward:

This book is an effort, not necessarily to provide the right answers, but more urgently to help ensure that those who care about combating antisemitism are asking intelligent and relevant questions, and not defaulting into comfortable but too often unproved and perhaps ineffective answers. (p. viii)

This book will inevitably provide the wrong answers by asking foolish and irrelevant questions about the supposed psychopathology and reactionaryism of non-Jews, instead of providing proven and effective answers about the predatory, corrupting, impoverishing and damaging behavior of Jews in non-Jewish societies. Never will Stern consider that the primary reason for anti-Semitism is Jewish behavior itself. All efforts to “combat” antisemitism must depict Jews as innocent victims, and non-Jews as maniacal irrational haters. This—taking a combative approach to reducing antisemitism—of course only increases it. Given the history of Jewish anti-semitism, it would not be a surprise if that is Stern’s actual goal.

Stern wrote earlier books Loud Hawk: The United States vs. the American Indian Movement (1994) and A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate (1996). Stern admits that what is good for pro-Indian causes is good for Jewish causes too:

Antisemitism thrives best in climates that tolerate other prejudices as well. I try to do all I can through my work to educate people about anti-Indian prejudice. I am proud that the American Jewish Committee is increasingly reaching out to Indian country, to support Indian religious freedoms and to combat anti-Indian bigotry. Dennis (Banks) once commented to me that all his lawyers over the years were Jewish. Neither of us thought that was a coincidence. (Epilogue, p. 353)

Neither do any of us. As far back as 1994 Jews were using other racial groups in America in their war on Whites, especially White Christians. So highly motivated, “Stern, a law student at the time, volunteered his services to the defense attorneys and remained with the case until its resolution,” though “The case did not end until 1988, after thirteen years of pretrial litigaion (sic). It stands as the longest pretrial case in U.S. history.”

Also in his book’s Epilogue, Stern presents the list of weapons and bombs the American Indian Movement wrote down in a notebook, one of the government’s exhibits against them. Stern also tells of a map he found in an AIM trailer after the sentencing, which showed 17 U.S. cities covering a span of one year from 1975–76. These were cities visited by the Bicentennial Freedom Train exhibit. Stern says “Nineteenth-century trains had brought subjugation to Indian people.” (p. 351) He fails to note that Jewish bankers such as the Rothschilds and others profited immensely from such rail infrastructure they financed. This evidence of weapons and bombs plus a list of target cities has striking similarities to the charges against the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial. The ANC and Mandela were also advised and funded by Jews. (The print version, Ostara Publications, updated 2018, contains an Appendix 2, “Mandela’s Jews: Jewish Involvement in the Rivonia Plot,” pp. 170–73)

In A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, Stern admits in regard to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995:

Nine days before the blast I had issued a lengthy report on the militia movement for the American Jewish Committee. … In early April I had written that people connected with militias were poised to attack government officials, possibly on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the fiery end of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. (p. 11)

This is an astoundingly accurate prediction, to the exact day, even for such a long-time “expert” on hate  as Kenneth Stern. Jews have displayed advance knowledge of false flag attacks at other times, such as the “Five Dancing Israelis” before 9-11, who were sent by the Israeli Mossad to “document the event.”  Stern does not redirect the blame to “Islamic terrorists” but to White American militias. Does Stern also condemn the similar bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem when 91 people, Arab and British administrators and hotel staff including 17 Israeli Jews were killed by other Israeli Irgun Jews disguised as Arabs?

A damning review of A Force upon the Plain by David B. Kopel (no militia supporter, having been a monthly donor to the Southern Poverty Law Center for 10 years) denounces Stern’s book for lacking any footnotes, describes the link between militias and the Oklahoma City bombing as “tenuous,” and notes that “the Southern Poverty Law Center’s data show that militia members perpetrate violent crimes at a per capita rate far below that of the U.S. population as a whole.” Essentially reversing Stern’s criticism of a documentary about Waco, Kopel describes Stern’s book as “a model of conspiratorial ‘logic’ designed to grab audiences who, if they accepted the premises and did not question the sleight-of-hand, easily could [be] convinced.” Those educated on the Jewish Issue are much harder to convince.

Stern’s latest book is The Conflict Over The Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate (2020). Stern was undoubtedly aware of the rising anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian boycott/divestment/sanction movement on campuses led by Students for Justice in Palestine. His book advocates for open debate on the issue:

But (a college) must not shield its students from examining ideas, even clearly hateful ones. After all, if thousands or millions of people believe certain ideas, how do we learn how to combat them if we don’t study them?

Stern’s strategy here is to expose the pro-Palestine side of the debate as “hateful,” and “combat” their views in the open arena of ideas on campus. To provide perspective, Stern says:

I also recommended full-semester interdisciplinary courses on antisemitism. From my experience teaching such a course, even students who have markedly different views on Israel/Palestine, by the time we reach the sections on Israel and Zionism, have a framework for discussing their different perspectives reasonably.

This “framework” is of course sympathy for innocent, suffering, victimized Jews, making students subject to this indoctrination less able to take the Palestinian side. Stern recommends no counter-balancing “full-semester interdisciplinary courses” on anti-Arabism. But doesn’t anti-Semitism also include anti-Arabism, since Arabs are Semites too? Not to Stern. Anti-Semitism means only one thing, and that is hate of Jews just for being Jewish.

Hate for Haters: Recent and Current Endeavors

From 2014 through 2018, Stern was executive director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation.

The Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation supports – through gifts and direct engagement of the Rosenberg Foundation staff – efforts to combat antisemitism and anti-Israel activity on campus, antisemitic hate crimes, Holocaust denial, antisemitic discourse, state-sponsored antisemitism, and other issues that have a direct impact on the growth of antisemitism.

Under Program Areas, Stern was working hard to indoctrinate college students with his hate obsession. They seem opposed to standard capitalization:

The Foundation provided support to four bard college [sic. students?] through this program in 2018, and the program’s executive director had significant involvement… in this program by (i) helping students identify and secure placements at appropriate ngos, (ii) meeting and regularly corresponding, via email and phone, with the students individually to share his knowledge of relevant issues and to provide contacts in the field in order to prepare each student for his or her internship; (iii) organizing and leading a two-day text study with the interns about hate…

Stern was working hard in other related areas to spread his message of hate, antisemitism and extremism.

The foundation’s executive director provided assistance to other organizations and individuals on issues relating to the Foundation’s mission, including: (I) the committee on the judiciary of the united states house of representatives (tesimony) [sic]; (ii) faculty, administrators and students regarding constructive ways to respond to hatred and antisemitism on various campuses; (iii) leaders of the Foundation for individual rights in education, j street, j street u, academic engagement network, the american association of jewish lawyers and jurists, open hillel, secure community network, and ameinu; (iv) the staff of the u.s. Holocaust memorial museum’s committee on holocaust denial and state-sponsored antisemitism (the executive director serves on this committee); (v) the institue [sic] for hate studies at gonzaga university regarding future programs (the executive director services [sic] on the advisory aboard for the institue) [sic]; (vi) the executive committee of the alliance for academic freedom…

Stern was very active with influences far beyond college campuses, reaching throughout mainstream society:

The Foundation’s executive director helped to educate the public on the Foundation’s mission by participating in educational conferences and writing opinion pieces in national publications; specifically the executive director wrote or co-authored opinion pieces that appeared in the forward (about antisemitism and about white supremacy and about academic freedom), cnn online (about a proposed neo-nazi march), inside higher education (about academic freedom and antisemitism), academe blog (about academic freedom and antisemitism), the richmond times (about academic freedom and antisemitism), post & courier (about academic freedom and antisemitism), and ther la (sic?) jewish journal (about white supremacy). The executive director also spoke before the american association of jewish lawyers and jurists, congrtation (sic) kehalath jesurun. The 92nd street y, the academic engagement network, the national jewish student journalism conference, nyu, congregation beth elohim, friends semnary (sic)…

The Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation closed in 2018, but in its final year it granted almost a million dollars to Bard College “To Support the Foundation’s Mission of Working To Combat And To Increase the Serious Study of hatred and Antisemitism.” Since Stern is also director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, for him as director of the Foundation to donate this money to another organization he directs is a flagrant example of conflict of interest and Jewish nepotism. Stern was paid almost $70,000 in 2018 as director of the Foundation.

As Foundation director in 2017, Stern submitted a 17-page testimony with three appendices to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses.

In late 2019, President Trump signed an executive order that “affords protection to Jewish students under title VI of the Civil Rights Act.” In his Guardian essay “I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it,” Stern complains that “rightwing” Jews were using the executive order to protect the Jewish state of Israel from criticism and denunciation, especially from Students for Justice in Palestine. And to Stern’s outrage, they were using his definition of antisemitism with its examples regarding Israel as a reference. Stern claims, “This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.”

This is not another expression of Jewish Antisemitism, but a example of Jewish in-fighting, in this case between rightwing and leftwing Jews regarding Israel. Stern is leftwing, and cannot condone rightwing Zionist Jews protecting the rightwing government of Israel in this way. He wants open discussion, not over the right of Israel to exist, but over whether a rightwing or leftwing government will lead it.

Today, as noted, Stern “is director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, a program of the Human Rights Project at Bard College.” He is motivated to expand the study of hate world-wide:

Stern is also active in the effort to establish an interdisciplinary academic field of Hate Studies. He previously served on the director’s advisory board for the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies, and he remains on the editorial board of the Journal of Hate Studies.


Jewish Professor, spokesman and advocate Kenneth Stern has worked hard through a long and distinguished career to gain mastery of the complex topics of hate, extremism and antisemitism, and spread his knowledge to large masses of people on campus and throughout and wherever Jews reside. In Stern’s advocacy, the heinous traits he studies exist only in non-Jews, never Jews themselves. Stern maintains the long-standing position that Jews are only innocent victims of hate, extremism and antisemitism, never responsible in any way for the hate that is directed toward them. In other words, to Stern there exists no legitimate anti-Semitism. The remedy to this intolerable situation is never for Jews to change their behavior toward non-Jews, but to “combat” antisemitism and hate with indoctrination, intimidation, lawsuits, imprisonment and fear of Jewish power.

Let us close our examination of Quasi Crytpo-Jew Kenneth Stern with solutions he proposed in his 2007 essay “Holocaust education won’t stop hate,” which too few of us have ever seen:

There are many things that can and are being done to combat today’s hatred of Jews. Human rights organizations must be challenged when they do not sufficiently assert that freedom from anti-Semitism is a human right.

Governments must be engaged to ensure that they investigate and prosecute anti-Semitic hate crimes fully. Monitoring groups must catalog not only the old-fashioned forms of religious and racial anti-Semitism, but also the more contemporary forms which treat the Jewish state in the same bigoted manner that traditional anti-Semitism regards the individual Jew.

A Jew such as Stern is obviously highly intelligent. How is it possible that Stern can never see that among the “many things that can be done to combat today’s hatred of Jews” must include Jews changing their destructive behavior toward non-Jews? Hate is not the problem, Jewish behavior is. Everyone experiences hate, and the biggest problem comes from those who do not embrace their own, but project it onto others. Stern only contributes to hatred of Jews with all his hate-mongering, extremism tracking and hyper vigilance for antisemitism. It is difficult to conceive of a more hateful object than a hysterical Jew who has contributed to the ruin of White Christian Patriotic America with an immense blind spot running around pointing fingers at other haters.

Now we know.

Russia Has No Strategy For Winning This War

If you look at and analyze the Not-War on the strategic level, well, you can’t help but come to the conclusions and talking points presented by the pessimists. If you’re honest, that is.

But the narrative has now shifted and the discussion is being framed on the tactical level. That is, the events around Bakhmut are what the Russian news and the commentators are talking about now. But the action around Bakhmut is a tactical one. There are three levels to military operations, at least in the Russian school.




And if you were hoping for a quick conclusion to the Bakhmut offensive, well. I’ve got more bad, but totally predictable, news for you.


The founder of Wagner PMC Yevgeny Prigozhin denied the information about the encirclement of 1.5 thousand Ukrainian soldiers near Bakhmut (Artemovsk). His comment is published by Prigozhin’s press service in the official telegram channel. He noted that the Ukrainians are putting up strong resistance and Bakhmut (Artemovsk) will not be taken in the near future.

“In all directions, the enemy is becoming more active, pulling up more and more new reserves. Every day, from 300 to 500 new fighters approach Bakhmut in all directions. Artillery fire intensifies every day,” said Yevgeny Prigozhin. He drew attention to the inappropriateness of positive promises that will not come true in the near future.

At the moment, fierce battles are being fought near Bakhmut (Artemovsk). Serious losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Bakhmut were reported by the American media, 360 TV channel reports . Yevgeny Prigozhin said that the capture of Bakhmut would be the key to Russia’s victory in the Ukrainian conflict, the National News Service reports . Acting head of the DPR Denis Pushilin said that the Russian military surrounded 1.5 thousand Ukrainian soldiers near Bakhmut .

Contrast this with the early days of the war where entire swaths of Ukraine were being colored in on maps and shared by Russia pundits and bloggers. Now, they’re coloring in fields and factories and little farms. And they’re trying to keep the same level of hype going as when they were talking about entire provinces being taken. Or, perhaps they will show videos of tank getting blown up. Or platoon of soldiers getting a grenade dropped on them from a drone. Very interesting footage, don’t get me wrong. We are seeing a different kind of war — a mix of WWI trench warfare and mini-Stalingrads.

But it is undeniable that a certain “zoom-in” has occurred. At best, we’re talking endlessly about towns that have been fought over for months now.

Having a discussion about the tactical level of things is a worthy pursuit in its own right. But not when it is presented in the context of a bait and switch. That is, we were promised large scale offensives. However fierce the fighting is in Bakhmut, it doesn’t take away from the fact that everywhere else on the frontlines, we are at a standstill. Furthermore, people are drawing conclusions about the state of the war on the strategic level based on tactical level data.

They’re also making mistakes about developments on the operational level.

I will give you a concrete example of what I mean. Bakhmut, even if taken, will not be exploited on an operational level. That is, there is no follow-up planned. I have been saying this for months now. There are no large concentrations of tanks and reserve troops to throw at the enemy once Bakhmut, a key point in the Ukrainian defensive line (or so we are told), finally falls to Ukraine. And now we have confirmation that Bakhmut isn’t falling any time soon by the man leading the fighting there. So, here we have confirmation that, Wagner, working largely alone, is unable to either tactically or operationally secure a win on this front.

If Bakhmut actually were an important point in the defensive line and had to be taken no matter the cost, then you would see more resources committed to the area. Again, there are no significant resources being committed by Russia to achieve either a tactical or operational victory in the area. But if we take into account that Bakhmut is a political objective being pursued by Wagner to improve their standing in the political pecking order at home, then the situation suddenly becomes clearer. This may also shed light on why Wagner’s troops have been loudly attacking First Deputy Minister of Defense Gerasimov for not supplying them with ammo that they need. Progozhin is feuding with the Minister of Defense Shoigu and may have even attempted a soft coup against him.

Bakhmut then, was supposed to be a feather in Wagner’s cap, not a turning point for the war.

This ties neatly into our discussion of the strategic dimension of the war effort. In the early days, we saw a clear strategy reflected by large troop movements, rapid breakthroughs and consolidation of territory and so on. Since then, we have seen very little of the same kind of warfare. There was a successful advance in Donetsk, but it ran out of steam and the gains were reversed by the counter-offensives of the Ukrainian army in the fall.

And after that, we well and truly saw nothing resembling a coherent strategy from Russia at all. Only feuding among its feudal commanders and an attempt to hold a defensive line. At the moment, there are no large concentrations of fresh Russian forces anywhere, except perhaps, in Belarus.

We have no idea what Russia’s plans are on the strategic level.

Some have floated the idea of attrition warfare — that is, that the Russians are focusing on simply killing as many enemy soldiers as possible and not on securing key objectives or territory. Putting aside, for a moment, that this is a horrible strategy, there is little to indicate that this is, indeed, the strategy being pursued by Russia. Again, Bakhmut, where Russia is engaging in a brutal grinding action fighting over buildings and factories block by block, is literally the opposite of the supposed attrition warfare strategy. Wagner was sending men to take fortified enemy positions head-on. In any war, occupying a fortified defensive position is a force multiplier or a buffer for the defenders. If the goal is attrition warfare, why go on the offensive against fortified positions?

It doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Furthermore, for this attrition warfare strategy to make sense, Russia would have to be killing far more men than they are losing. But, according to the data that we have now, Russia lost more men in the early days of the war because of the risky operations that they were conducting. Then, using their superior artillery, they began to kill more Ukrainians than they lost, true. However, going on the offensive against fortified positions should have evened out the balance in the other direction again.

I believe that the evidence points to Ukraine quickly approaching 100k military deaths by the anniversary of the start of the SMO and Russia lagging behind, but not by that much. And I will revisit the topic on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Not-War.

If the strategy is to engage in attrition warfare, then simply do the math yourselves. How many years of fighting will it take at this pace to destroy the Ukrainian army, which stands at 700k now, at least, and whose numbers continue to climb and which, in theory anyway, could easily draft another million men? And, of course, their ranks are being supplemented by Western mercenaries all the while. Poland openly admits to training tank crews and sending officers into Ukraine and so does NATO.
So, yes, there have been some tactical victories in Bakhmut. There have been no successful Russian operations since the smooth retreat from Kherson though (if you want to count that) and nobody can actually point to a cohesive strategy being pursued by either the people in charge of the battlefield or the home front.

All of this points to the fact that Russia’s elites have no stomach for this fight and a deal is being worked out through backroom channels.

If, on the strategic level, the goal is to engage in attrition warfare, then it simply isn’t working fast enough.

Many pessimistic pro-Russian analysts have already come to this conclusion and point out that a new strategy is necessary. That Russia needs to fight this war like wars are normally fought. Russia needs to focus on seizing territory and strategic objectives, on breaking through enemy lines and then enveloping their positions. More men and equipment are needed to achieve decisive victories that can then be followed up on and the war concluded more rapidly, not strung out, with the number of dead steadily rising and progressively more and more of the Ukraine left in smoldering ruins.

By narrowing in our focus on the tactical level fighting over a barn in Bakhmut or Ugledar, we lose sight of the strategic goals of the war.

The initial goal of the SMO was to quickly take back Ukraine without undue bloodshed. Now though, the nightmare scenario has been realized. The neocons got their protracted war and it is bleeding the Slavic peoples dry. The West has had to spend a lot of money to keep it going, true, but a lot of that money is being stolen to line the pockets of the same politicians who wanted the war in the first place. Yes, the average Briton or German has gotten poorer as a result of this holy Crusade for Liberal Democracy and the sanctity of Ukrainian borders, but the politicians have only benefitted. And in a Liberal Democracy, that is all that matters, really.

The criticisms of Russia’s overall strategy can be extended to the Russian home front, which has not been readied for war. If the goal is to kill 1 million Ukrainian soldiers over 10 years, there have to be enough shells, at least, being made in Russia. The only problem is that there aren’t. Supply problems have already started and no new factories are being opened in Russia to supply the front. Meanwhile, Russia has not made a play to establish a dollar-less world. Russia hasn’t even divested from globalist organizations like the WTO or the WEF. Furthermore, many of the same pro-Globalist forces in the Russian government, who we had good reason to believe would be fired, at least, remain at their posts.

So, yes, there have been some tactical victories in Bakhmut. There have been no successful Russian operations since the smooth retreat from Kherson though (if you want to count that), and nobody can actually point to a cohesive strategy being pursued by either the people in charge of the battlefield or the home front.

All of this points to the fact that Russia’s elites have no stomach for this fight and a deal is being worked out through backroom channels.

Report from Washington:  DC Gulag Vigil for January 6 Political Prisoners

While in Washington for the Rage Against the War Machine rally on Sunday, February 19, I took time out on Friday and Saturday to check out the nightly DC Gulag vigil outside the DC Central Detention Facility.  Across the street from the jail in a blocked-off area dubbed the “Freedom Corner,” some serious patriots are holding the space not just for January 6 political prisoners, but for American democracy as well.

The largest manhunt in U.S. history continues apace as Americans connected to January 6 are being silently hunted down and persecuted. The Feds are rounding up people at an average rate of about one a day now, according to Randy Ireland, founder of Americans for Justice and a prominent activist for J6 inmates. While Julian Assange and Guantanamo prisoners rightfully receive worldwide attention, very few people realize that right here in the U.S.A. there are now about 1,000 American citizens who have been caught up in this domestic, politically fueled dragnet . . . with more coming.

The DC Gulag vigil was started August 1, 2022, by Micki Witthoeft (Ashley Babbitt’s mother) and Randy Ireland. It followed a 34-day encampment in DC from July 6 to August 3 by the 1776 Restoration Movement to speak with Congress about the plight of the J6 political prisoners. Many J6ers are facing bogus charges such as parading or being in a restricted area, with most carrying unfair, excessive sentences. Not a single official came to talk with the activists or learn more.

For the past two years, unlike other jail inmates, the January 6 inmates have been allowed no family visits, religious services, or medical treatment. With the instrumental help of Texas Republican congressman Troy Nehls, finally on January 23, the J6 inmates were able to have one-hour weekly visits and religious services.

At the vigil I spoke with an elderly woman who had driven over 1,100 miles from Kansas to visit her son, Billy Chrestman, whom she hasn’t seen in two years. She got to see him on Friday for one hour. That’s it. She doesn’t know when she’ll get to see him again.

I was surprised to meet Nicole Reffitt whose husband, Guy Reffitt, was famously the first January 6 protester to be convicted. Their son, Jackson, had been wired by the FBI to rat on his father. Besides the FBI, Nicole explained that her son had also been highly manipulated by his school as well as social pressure from his friends to testify against his father.

Jackson earned thousands of dollars from a GoFundMe he set up after turning his father in. Nicole is from Texas, but is at the vigil every night because she understands this issue is bigger than her husband’s imprisonment. I got goosebumps hearing her family’s ongoing Shakespearean saga. It was truly chilling.

Nicole Reffitt, whose husband Guy is now serving over 7 years in prison.

I met Tommy Tatum who was at the January 6 event and was a key eyewitness to the murder of Rosanne Boyland. The government claimed she died of a drug overdose. The reality is that she was killed by a Black Metro policewoman who beat Rosanne over the head with a baton. Tommy said he was holding Rosanne’s hand while they were stuck in a crush of bodies near the West Capitol steps.

Tommy claims the reason he is free and that the Feds won’t touch him is because he was a direct eyewitness to the murder of Rosanne Boyland. Under no circumstances do they want to let the true Boyland story go viral because her murder contradicts the official narrative. So they’ve invisibilized Tommy and his testimony. In the eyes of the law, he does not exist.

There are quite a few military veterans in the J6 community who either have no J6 relatives or friends in jail and/or were not at the January 6 event themselves. One ex-combat veteran who fits that description is Sherri Hafner from Ohio who, like others, has temporarily relocated to Washington to support the vigil. She told me she took an oath when she was 17 to defend her country from enemies foreign and domestic, and now sees a pressing domestic need to stand up for freedom.

There were several Chinese present who I learned likewise have no relatives or friends who are J6-incarcerated nor attended the January 6 event, but diligently attend the vigils along with other Chinese. I spoke with Lily, a native of China, who shared with me her disdain for life under communist rule in China, and how she and others in her church community recognize a very similar heavy hand with the January 6 persecutions.

By strange coincidence, my uber driver to the jail was a Nigerian. He told me he has friends who work inside the DC Jail. I knew exactly what that was about because I’ve read that some of most cruel Correctional Officers against the J6 inmates are Africans. It is particularly demeaning for these highly patriotic inmates to be lorded over by foreigners.

Earlier on Friday I had gone to the Victims of Communism museum.  It was like a sad, scary, heartfelt bookend to be at a vigil later that evening for dozens of American political prisoners.  The dedicated patriots manning the vigil believe our country depends on them keeping watch. They explained that all manner of dangerous legal precedents are being pushed through as part of the J6 trials, saying these precedents are going to affect our country for years to come. And hardly anyone is paying attention.

For example, the city of Washington, DC has been named as a victim in some of the lawsuits. When has an entire city ever been deemed a victim?  How could a jury of DC residents possibly be unbiased?  One would think a change of venue would be allowed, especially since most of the J6 protesters are from all over the country. Yet, change of venue motions are consistently denied for J6ers by DC judges.

As part of the J6 vigil program, cell phone calls with inmates are broadcast on a local PA system for everyone to listen in on the call and shout back words of encouragement.  There is also a regular roll call of the 115 or so inmates in the surrounding DC jails and federal prisons across America. After each name is read, vigil attendees shout “Hero!”

Every night at the 9:00pm closing, the supporters sing the Star-Spangled Banner in unison with the J6ers in the DC Jail who began the tradition among themselves in May 2021 as a way to maintain solidarity.  While everyone both inside and outside are singing, those inmates whose thin rectangular windows face the street where the vigil is located repeatedly flash their lights on and off in a sort of Morse code of unity.

During the singing, I started crying knowing how today’s “Bolsheviks” are doing all they can to destroy us, how we are in extremely dangerous times as, besides the experimental vaccines, we are now being poisoned by yet another bioweapon such as the toxic derailment in East Palestine, and how this scraggly band of patriots is at the raw edge of loyalty to our country.

This is what I wrote in the #freedomcorner “guest book”:

I’ve never felt more American than being here at #freedomcorner. USA! USA! USA!

Singing the Star-Spangled Banner while facing the DC Jail which holds many of the January 6 inmates

Posters of two of the murdered victims on January 6 — Rosanne Boyland and Ashli Babbitt

My friend, Cara Castronuova, has been reporting on J6 from the beginning. She helped me connect with the vigil and sent me this text once I was there: It is very possible to find incredible beauty & joy in even the most evil places & terrible circumstances. In the end God wins!

Here’s some superb recent coverage:

For more information about the January 6 political prisoners, see:

Cat McGuire is a freedom activist in New York City with a focus on opposing vaccine mandates, ID passports, and the New World Order Great Reset.

The Jewish Blood-Obsession

Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand?
—Shakespeare, Macbeth (Act II, sc. 2)

Blood is such a strange substance in human experience.  We all have blood, of course, but it is hidden away, as it were, out of sight and out of mind.  On the one hand, it is the very fluid of the living body, as necessary as air.  Blood is life, energy, vibrancy, youth; we speak of “red-blooded,” “hot-blooded,” “flesh and blood,” “young blood.” By contrast, though, it also represents injury and death; the mere sight of blood makes some people faint dead away.  The only time most of us actually see blood is when it is leaking out of a living (or perhaps recently dead) body, and thus—not good!  Visible blood is a sign of danger, of pain, and perhaps of death.  Unsurprising, then, that most people shun the very sight of it.

And yet, some people do not shun the sight of blood.  Some, it seems, relish it.  Some find glory in it, expiation, and even salvation.  Indeed, some see it as their very linkage to God himself.  In fact, the Jews are precisely such a people.  From ancient times, the Hebrew tribe viewed blood as central to both their daily lives and their broader worldview.  Blood was ever-present in ordinary (Jewish) human affairs, and it was a key element in Jewish religious ritual.  So pervasive and so important was the use of blood that Judaism constituted a virtual blood-cult.  Stephen Geller refers to the Hebrews’ “sanguinary sacrificial cult” that is well-documented in the Old Testament.[1]  Judaism was (and remains) a “mystery religion in which blood serves as a powerful physical substance,” according to David Biale.[2]  Blood is that by which Jews commune with God; in a way, blood is the material manifestation of God himself.

Perhaps most important, in the Jewish worldview, is the idea that blood is the means by which human sin is atoned and washed away.  Evil is banished and the human soul is cleansed and restored through sacrificial blood.  In a sense, the world itself, and even the very cosmos, is purified by the spilling of such blood.  Lest we doubt this, we need only turn to the relevant Biblical passages—both Old Testament and New.  As we read in (appropriately) the Book of Hebrews, “under [Jewish] Law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (9:22).  This is a key point, and it has profound implications.

Nor should we believe that such ‘blood cults’ were commonplace at that time.  All ancient human cultures, of course, dealt with blood in some form or another, but for nearly all of them, blood was merely of peripheral interest.  Not so with the Jews; they seem to have had a unique fascination, even an obsession, with the concept and the use of blood.  Concisely summarizing the situation, Biale (p. 10) writes, “the ancient Israelites were the only Near Easterners to make blood a central element in their religious rituals.”  And: “the central role of blood in the priestly religion of ancient Israel remains highly persuasive.”  Blood was uniquely essential to the Jewish religion and the Jewish worldview.

In the present essay, I will document some of the main elements of the Jewish blood-cult and then, at the end, draw some plausible inferences from this situation.  Needless to say, the consequences are troubling.

Blood in Ancient Cultures

Let me start by outlining a few basic facts about the nature of blood in ancient societies.  Having little detailed knowledge of human physiology, ancient peoples were naturally in awe of the “power” of blood.  It was clearly necessary for life, and if, through some injury, sufficient blood escaped the body, death quickly followed.  This was as true for animals as it was for humans; all living creatures clearly shared in this life-giving, life-sustaining fluid.

In daily human life, blood is generally hidden away and out of sight, as mentioned.  But there are a number of occasions in which it becomes visible.  One such instance, of course, is during a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle—which, notably, is the sign that a woman is fertile and physically able to bear children.  Menstrual blood is a good thing; it signifies (potential) future life.  Ancient peoples were generally unclear about the purpose of menstruation, but they knew that intercourse during such bleeding was generally unproductive, and that if the purpose of sex was procreation, that menstrual blood was a sign to abstain.[3]

On the topic of sexual intercourse, blood can also appear during a woman’s initial act of copulation, upon the tearing of the hymen tissue.  In the case of a married couple, such blood is a sign of successful consummation, and a good omen for the future family.

Animal blood was also a common sight in ancient times, at least for the farmer or butcher who regularly killed animals for meat.  And surely most women, who did the majority of cooking, had to regularly work with bloody cuts of meat in the kitchen.  As we will see, animal blood also came to hold a central role in Jewish religious life.

Jews had, additionally, other occasions to deal with blood.  One was during circumcision, when the male infant’s foreskin is surgically removed.  On the face of it, circumcision is an unquestionably bizarre bit of male genital mutilation.  It is the cutting-off of an evolved and biologically appropriate skin covering, for nothing but symbolic or ritualistic (cultic) reasons.  According to Herodotus (circa 425 BC), the procedure originated in Egypt and then spread to other cultures: “Other people, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practice circumcision.”  Somewhat later, he adds that “the Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians”—which almost certainly include the Jews—“are the first to admit that they learned the practice from Egypt.”[4]  Today, around 90% of male Jews and an even higher proportion of Muslim men are circumcised.  The rate for American men is about 70%, whereas in most nations of Western Europe, the figure is more like 5%.

Apart from several minor references, circumcision is mentioned in two significant contexts in the Old Testament: First, in Genesis (17:11), where it is “a sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham; and second, in Exodus (4:24), where Moses’s wife circumcises their son, takes the bloody foreskin, and touches Moses’ penis with it—euphemistically called his “feet” in most translations.  She thereupon calls him her “bridegroom of blood”!  Quite an achievement: sexual titillation and bloody perversity, all in one short incident.

In any case, the ancient Jews viewed circumcision as a physical mark of Jewishness, and the blood that was spilled during that process was part of the holy covenant with God.  Over time, an entire ritual evolved around circumcision.  The Jewish mohel (circumciser), after the surgery, would wipe his hands of the infant’s blood and then hang the bloody cloth on the door of the synagogue, as a sign of “success.”  The mohel then placed a few drops of wine in the infant’s mouth, signifying the blood that was drawn.  This is remarkable; the infant is compelled—forced—to “drink blood” in the form of drops of wine.

And worse still:  In the Orthodox tradition known as metzitzah, still active today, the mohel himself sucks the blood from the infant’s penis, with his own mouth!  And indeed, the Talmud mandates such a process.[5]  The rabbis supposedly believed that sucking the blood would prevent infection.  This is bogus, on at least two counts: in reality, it increases the chance for infection, most notably from oral herpes, which can be fatal to an infant; and second, it’s hard to believe that the good rabbi doesn’t get some perverse sexual pleasure out of sucking the infant’s penis.  Also, it is an open question whether the mohel actually swallows the blood that he sucks; apparently it is left to his own discretion.  All in all, a truly demented procedure.

The Blood Covenant

Apart from these human biological considerations, there are two other circumstances in which blood plays a part in Judaism: in sacrifices and as a prohibited food.  Both are related, but let me begin with the blood sacrifice.  It was common Judaic practice to sacrifice one or more animals to God as a sign of piety, whether on a makeshift table, a simple altar, or in the main temple itself in Jerusalem.  Such sacrifices appear virtually from the start of the Bible; in Genesis (4:3–4) we read that Cain brought offerings of fruit to God and Abel “brought the firstlings of his flock.”

Perhaps the first blood sacrifice of major importance occurs in the original “Passover” event.  In Exodus 12 we read that God tells Moses to have his Jewish people sacrifice a lamb, one per family; then they must “take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the house.”  Consequently, when God (or his divine agent) descends on Egypt to kill all the firstborn—even the firstborn of the animals! (12:12)—he will “pass over” the Jewish houses with blood on them: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.”  Here, the blood of the innocent lamb saves the Jews from God’s wrath.

Later on, we have a second consequential sacrifice.  After Moses and the Jews escape from the Pharaoh and are living near Mt. Sinai—presumed to be somewhere on the present-day Sinai Peninsula—God tells Moses to build an altar and then sacrifice some oxen (plural, number unknown).  As we read (Ex 24:6), Moses collects up the ox blood and divides it into two: half is thrown against the altar (which represents God), and half is scattered on the Jews:  “Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.’”  This “blood covenant” is a hugely important milestone; it bonds the Jews to God, creating a sort of “blood brotherhood.”  It attempts to make the anointed capable of contacting the divine, and it protects them from his awesome (and evidently indiscriminate) power.[6]  But here is the key point:  Only via being drenched in blood are the Jews saved.

A similar bizarre process is repeated a bit later when Moses’ older brother, Aaron, and his sons, are anointed with blood in their role as Jewish high priests.  In Exodus 29:15, Aaron and sons are instructed to kill one ram and scatter its blood on the altar, and then to slaughter a second ram.  Moses is then directed to “take part of its blood and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron [and his sons].”  Similarly dabbed are their right thumbs and right big toes.  Blood and oil are then sprinkled upon Aaron and sons’ clothing.  Once again, being marked by blood and doused in blood are the means by which the Jewish high priest is anointed.

The Levitical Bloodbath

This brings us to the next “Book of Moses,” Leviticus.  This, the shortest of the five books of the Torah, is a literal bloodbath.  Blood appears constantly throughout the text; in all, there are some 90 explicit references to blood in this single, short book.  Here, the Jewish blood-cult is in its full glory.  Already in the first chapter, Moses is told to sacrifice a bull, “and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar” (1:5)—in other words, blood splattered everywhere.  And they’re only getting warmed up.

Chapters 4 and 5 expend much effort discussing the chatat, or “sin offering.”  The term appears over a dozen times, each connected to blood sacrifice.  The lesson here, once again, is that, for the Jews, their sin can only be expiated via blood.  Chapter 16 is likewise filled with references to “sin offering” and the subsequent “sprinkling of blood.” Of special interest in Chapter 17 is the proscription on the eating of blood, repeated briefly in Chapter 19; I will address that issue momentarily.  Apart from this, I haven’t the space here to examine the details of the dozens of blood-citations in Leviticus; the reader is invited to peruse that book for himself, in order to get a flavor of the Jewish obsession.

The final two books of the Torah are Numbers and Deuteronomy.  Neither talks much about blood sacrifice—at least, of the animal variety.  Here, in these two books, we turn to human slaughter.  Numbers (31) is famous for the so-called Midianite Massacre:  At God’s command, Moses’ army kills the five Midian kings and all the adult men.  They then capture all the women and children, and march them back to the Israelite camp.  Moses decides it was bad policy to hold all these captives, so he orders his men to kill all the women, all the boys, and all the non-virgin girls—the virgins, they keep for themselves.  And no small number, either; at 31:32, we read that the intrepid Israelites have claimed 32,000 (!) virgins.  Hence the slaughtered must have exceeded 100,000 by a fair number.  Nothing like another good bloodletting.

But perhaps there is a valuable lesson here for the Jews after all:  Slay and kill the innocent goyim—who are little more than animals—and splatter their blood upon the sands.  God will be most pleased.  Then claim their young girls as your sexual prize.  I think we can see many echoes here in the modern day.

Deuteronomy is similarly filled with assorted massacres and slaughters.  The word ‘destroyed’ appears more than two dozen times, along with a variety of colorful synonyms.  Surely the Judean desert sands ran red with blood.  Of particular note is the slaughter of the Canaanites in Book 7: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.”  This, from an “all-good” God.

Wait a minute, some may say.  What about that “Thou shalt not kill” thing?  Yes indeed—what about that?  It is the famous item #6 in the Big Ten of commandments, which appears in Exodus 20.  Notoriously, there is no elaboration; just the bare four words, “Thou shall not kill.”

Many people, including very many smart people, have spent a long time puzzling over the apparent contradiction of a Bible in which “Thou shall not kill” is followed shortly by stories of mass slaughter of animals and humans.  But in fact, there is no contradiction here at all.  On this count, the Bible is perfectly consistent.  One need only realize that the Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is the “Jewish Bible,” after all.  Everything in it pertains to interactions with other Jews, unless specifically stated otherwise.  The prohibition on killing applies (selectively) only to other Jews: to “your brother,” “your neighbor,” the Jew.  The commandment does not apply (obviously) to animals, and it does not apply to the non-Jews: the gentiles, the ‘goyim,’ the stranger, the “nations,” as the case may be.  In this sense, gentiles are no better than animals; and in fact, there are many Talmudic passages that implicitly and explicitly equate non-Jews with animals.  For such beings, no commandments apply.  They can be used, abused, bought, sold, exploited, beaten, or killed—all in the service of Jewish needs and Jewish interests.

Christian Blood-Salvation

A common retort to all this by Jews and their sympathizers is that, after all, Christians are “saved” and cleansed by blood too—the blood of Jesus.  We all do it!  So, it must be ok—or so they imply.  And in fact, it is true that Christians claim salvation via Christ’s blood.  But this situation only further implicates the Jews, not to mention condemning Christian foolishness.

The issue, of course, is that the early “Christian” movement was entirely conceived and conducted by ethnic Jews.[7]  Presuming he existed, Jesus himself was an ethnic Jew, as were his 12 disciples.  His most famous advocate, Paul of Tarsus, was an ethnic Jew, as were the later anonymous writers of the Gospels.  As Nietzsche rightly observed, in the New Testament, “we are among Jews.”[8]

There are some 10 passages in the New Testament where it is explicitly stated that Christians are saved by Jesus’s blood.  Three such citations can be found in the letters of Paul: In Romans, he writes of salvation “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3:25).  And again: “Since, therefore, we are now justified by [Jesus’s] blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (5:9); this, incidentally, is an exact transposition of the Jews’ Passover myth into Christian terms.  Then in Colossians, Paul explains how we all can live in “peace by the blood of his [Jesus’s] cross” (1:20).

Elsewhere in the New Testament, the anonymous writer of Ephesians promises that “you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ” (2:13).  And the equally anonymous Hebrews (9:6–18) offers an extended discussion on the matter, indicating a clear knowledge of Jewish practices:

These preparations having thus been made, the [Jewish] priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. …

But when Christ appeared as a high priest…he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ…purify your conscience.

Our author then summarizes the events of Leviticus, for the benefit of the non-Jewish reader:

Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the Law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.

“Indeed,” he adds, “under the [Jewish] Law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”  As I mentioned above, this hits the nail on the head:  no blood, no salvation.  Christians have the nominal advantage of not having to spill more blood, because Jesus (allegedly) covered everyone for all time; but the Jews must repeat their ritual sacrifice on a regular basis.  No blood, no salvation.

So, we can see what is happening here:  A group of Jews, led by Paul, transposed the Jewish custom of ‘salvation through blood’ into a Christian context, using the very real blood of the (likely) real crucifixion of a mortal Jewish rabbi, Jesus, in place of the blood of animals.  Paul used the bizarre and sadistic Jewish practice of blood-salvation to draw in the naïve and superstitious Gentiles, and to cruelly promise them release from all sins and an eternal life that could never be confirmed.  In a sense, he imposed the Jewish blood-obsession on the rest of non-Jewish humanity—or at least, on those who could be duped into believing him.

Blood Libel?

This brings us to perhaps the most contentious blood-issue with the Jews: the notion of the Jewish ritual slaughter of people, also called “blood libel.”  That the Jews would ritually slaughter animals was commonplace knowledge, but the idea that they might also slaughter humans was a uniquely troubling assertion, one that dates back over two millennia.  The earliest such reference comes from 300 BC when the philosopher Theophrastus wrote that the Jews “now sacrifice live victims…both of other living beings [i.e. animals and non-Jews] and of themselves.”[9]  Later, in 168 BC, the Seleucid king Epiphanes sacked the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, only to find a captive Greek man being held for sacrifice.  Around the year 100 AD, Damocritus wrote that the Jews “caught a foreigner and sacrificed him” once every seven years.  And Cassius Dio’s Roman History (115 AD) explains that the Jews “would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, [and] anoint themselves with their blood”—which by now should sound familiar.  The Jews would also “wear [human] skins for clothing, and many they sawed in two, from the head downwards” —to be expected, I suppose, from a blood cult.

By the 300s AD, leading Christians were openly condemning the Jewish fixation on blood and sacrifice.  John Chrysostom, in 387, wrote, “Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed [i.e., Jews], who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed?”[10]  As the Middle Ages descended over Europe, Jews increasingly moved into Christian territory, developing a reputation for exploiting and abusing their hosts.  As also occurred in the Roman Empire, many Jews were also involved with White slave-trading, something that particularly incensed many Christians.

But it was the blood libel—that is, the murder of Christians, especially youth—that produced an uproar.  The first such case occurred in 1144 in Norwich, England, where a young boy, William, was allegedly murdered by some local Jews.  A Benedictine monk, Thomas of Monmouth, later argued that the Jews collectively chose to ritually slaughter one child per year, as a sort of offering to God, in exchange for his returning them to their Holy Land.  Notably, in William’s case, there was no accusation of any use of the boy’s blood.

That changed in 1235, when three dozen Jews were accused of the ritual murder of five boys in Fulda, Germany.  Locals claimed that the Jews extracted and consumed their blood.  In the end, 34 Jews were executed for the crime, and true “blood libel” was on its way to public notoriety.  This was followed by a similar incident regarding a young girl in Pforzheim, Germany in 1267, and with young Rudolph of Bern (Switzerland) in 1294, who was beheaded and drained of blood.  Such crimes recurred periodically over the years, roughly once per decade, on average, culminating in the particularly notorious case of Simon of Trent (now, Trento, Italy), in 1475.  In such cases, Christian blood was claimed to be required for mystic Jewish rituals, for Jewish medicines, and in the preparation of sacramental foods like matza.

Blood libel accusations continued, off and on, for the next four centuries, only to accelerate in the late 1800s.  Biale (126) explains that some 100 such accusations occurred just in the 30 years between 1880 and 1910.  Blood libel, it seems, had truly struck a chord with the common man.

The Jews, of course, always denied such crimes, at least initially; many later ‘confessed’ under torture.  Their central argument was this:  Jews are prohibited from eating blood.  And they could cite scripture to justify their defense.  In Genesis 9:4, we read that God gives Noah and his family every living thing as food, except “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”  Then in the infamous Leviticus, God says to Moses, “you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings.  Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”  (‘Cut off’ is generally taken as a euphemism for ‘killed.’)  It is also found in Lev 19:26: “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it.”  But the most emphatic statement comes at Lev 17:10, where God speaks as follows:

If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. … For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

The same proscription is briefly repeated later, in Deuteronomy (“Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh”; 12:23).

So far, so good—except for one small problem:  none of this applies to human blood.  The Genesis and Deuteronomic passages clearly pertain to animal flesh.  In Leviticus, the whole context is around sacrificial animals, typically birds, sheep, or cattle.  The blood, as we have seen, was used for ceremonial purposes, but it would have been natural for someone—the priests, perhaps, or their families—to eat the sacrificed animal; unless the corpse was to be burned, it would have simply gone to waste.  But the blood was off limits, to be used only for sacramental, if bizarre, purposes.

This elemental point seems to be lost on everyone who, even today, attempts to defend Jews against the “antisemitic canard” of blood libel.  But there have been a few perceptive (and brave) intellectuals who understood this issue correctly and spoke out about it.  One was the German scholar of religion and Hebrew, Erich Bischoff (1867–1937).  Bischoff’s 1929 book The Book of the Shulchan Aruch was the first, and still only, learned critique of the core Jewish text known as the Shulchan Aruch, which is a condensed version of the much-larger Talmud.[11]  In an examination of one part of the Shulchan—the “Orach Chayim”—we encounter the following nonchalant passage:

If one eats something that you dip into one of the following liquids as a condiment—namely, Jàjin [wine], debâsch [honey], schèmen [oil], chèleb [milk], tal [dew], dâm [blood] and màjjim [water]—then one must wet the hands…  (Orach Chayim 158,4)

In his commentary that follows (66), Bischoff is emphatic: “The consumption of blood is allowed in the Shulchan Aruch!”  He notes that the Shulchan author, Joseph Karo, “seems to think nothing of it”—almost like it was a run-of-the-mill event.  Bischoff continues: “The Old Testament…only forbids the consumption of the blood of cattle and birds—primarily those used for sacrifices. … The Old Testament allows for other consumption of blood” (ibid.).

As further support, Bischoff quotes the influential Jewish scholar Maimonides:

Whoever deliberately eats as much blood as an olive, has forfeited his salvation. … The guilt occurs only with the blood of animals and birds, whether domestic or wild, whether clean or unclean. On the other hand, there is no indebtedness in the blood of fish, locusts, reptiles, amphibians, and human blood.  (Jad Chasakah, VI,1)

There is no “indebtedness” in those last creatures precisely because they are not mentioned in the OT; whatever is not prohibited is allowed—an ancient Jewish precept.

Should we desire more recent confirmation, we can turn to a renegade Jewish scholar, Ariel Toaff.  His highly contentious book Passovers of Blood (2007, original edition) makes a very strong case that the use of human blood, both wet and dried, was a regular Jewish practice in the Middle Ages—and perhaps is still so today.[12]  His Chapter 6 is especially relevant here; Toaff examines the use of blood during circumcision and comments on numerous instances, even “recipes,” involving the use of human blood.  In one Jewish compendium, he says, “we will find a broad range of recipes providing for the oral ingestion of blood, both human and animal” (156).  Other formulations refer to such things as “a chicken feather soaked with menstrual blood,” “dried rabbit’s blood,” “dried blood from a virgin having her first menstrual period,” and the generic “blood of children” (ibid).  Toaff’s subject compendium “furthermore stressed the prodigious properties of human blood, naturally, always dried and prepared in the form of curdles or powder, as the main ingredient of aphrodisiacal elixirs.”  And finally, Toaff quotes one Jewish defendant in the Simon of Trent trial, Israel Wolfgang, who stated, for the record, “there is no [rabbinic] prohibition against usefully benefiting from the dead bodies of Gentiles” (159).  Of course not—they are mere animals, after all.

And in the New Testament

But as with the blood sacrifice, the Jewish apologist has one other defensive tactic here: ‘the Christians do it, too.’  That is, Christians also eat blood—the blood of Christ.  This procedure has a name: the Eucharist.[13]  It is a sacrament in Catholicism and most Protestant denominations, something of highest importance.  In it, parishioners metaphorically consume (eat) Christ’s body, in the form of bread or a wafer, and drink his blood, in the form of wine or juice.  Again, on its face, this is a bizarre and even pathological ceremony: to “eat the body” and “drink the blood,” even symbolically, of your long-dead savior.  How sick is this?

Where could such a revolting idea have come from?  Oh, wait, we know:  from the Jews.  We don’t know if the Jew Jesus actually created it, or if it was concocted in the warped mind of the Jew Paul, but regardless, it was clearly of Jewish origin.  And now we can see why—the longstanding Jewish tradition of using sacrificial blood (here, the “Lamb of God”) to anoint oneself, to bind with God, and to form a covenant.  It all fits in with the Jewish soteriology.  Jews were prohibited from drinking sacrificial (animal) blood, but now, with the Gentiles, they could consume (human) sacrificial blood, symbolically.  Leave it to the Jews to turn the gullible Gentiles into (symbolic) cannibals and (symbolic) blood-drinkers.

The Eucharist, as a part of the Last Supper, has a scriptural basis, appearing twice with Paul (both times in 1 Corinthians) and once in each of the four Gospels.  The first, and chronologically earliest,[14] occurrence is in Paul; at 1 Cor 10:16, where he writes, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Then in the next chapter, we find the one and only direct quotation of Jesus anywhere in Paul:

[Jesus] said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  (11:24–25)[15]

Thus Jesus explicitly calls it a “covenant of blood,” exactly as we would expect from a Jewish rabbi.

The Eucharist then appears in almost identical form in the three earliest Gospels:

Mark 14:26: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

Matt 26:28: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Luke 22:20: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Short and to the point.  But the last-written Gospel, John, inexplicably has a much more extended quotation:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  (Jn 6:53-56)

How is it that this Gospel, written around the year 95 AD, some 65 years (!) after the crucifixion, could cite in such detail the words of Christ, when neither Paul nor the other Gospels could do so?  It makes one highly suspicious, to say the least.  In any case, we no longer find any explicit “covenant” here; now, it is just an orgy of flesh-eating and blood-drinking, accompanied by vague promises of eternal life.

In sum:  In the Eucharist we see how the Gentile Christians got hoodwinked into adopting a Jewish tradition of blood-covenants and blood-recipes, even though the Gentiles had no cultural history of such a thing.  Granted that blood is not nearly as central in Christianity as it is in Judaism, but still, it is highly important.  Within Catholicism, the Eucharist has been officially called “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life.”[16]  Good Christians everywhere:  Drink that blood!

Some Consequences

Several important points follow from all this.  First, we should not think that the Jewish blood-cult was something that only existed in ancient times, or that the blood sacrifices ceased when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.  The keepers of Judaism are nothing if not fixated on the past.  For them, for the Orthodox Jews, the Haredi and the Dati, they are literal followers of the Old Testament, the Talmud, and the Shulchan Aruch.  If you think fundamentalist Christians are hard-nosed absolutists, you haven’t yet run into a Haredi Jew.  Orthodox Jews treat their sacred documents like they were written yesterday, and they fully expect such writings to hold for eternity.  Animal sacrifice, treating Gentiles like dogs, exploiting non-Jews, cheating and killing them, child sexual abuse, blood-aphrodisiacs, oral circumcision, blood-splattering…the whole package.  The Jewish blood-cult is here to stay—as long as there are Jews.

Second, it’s no use to argue that such orthodox Jews comprise just 10 percent or 20 percent of the total Jewish population, and that therefore all this bloody religious stuff does not apply to the secular majority.  Not so.  The sentiments described above apply, to a greater or lesser degree, to nearly all Jews.  Judaism, as documented in the various texts, is not like an ordinary religion.  It is more like a guide for living as a Jew in a largely non-Jewish world.  This is absolutely true for the Talmud and the Shulchan, which are explicitly manuals for daily life.  These in turn rely on the Old Testament, which is, itself, mostly about social interactions (Jew and Gentile), with a little ‘theological frosting’ on the top.  Yes, much of the Old Testament involves words that “God says,” but this is little more than literary shorthand for “words by which good Jews should live their lives.”  As has been argued elsewhere, Jehovah is really just a stand-in for the Jewish people themselves.  It’s like the little voice sitting on your shoulder, telling you what to do.  Judaism’s holy texts are just a distillation, fixed for all time, of Jews telling themselves how to act in order to thrive and prosper.

Because of this, it is “baked in” to all Jews, no matter how secular and enlightened they claim to be.  There is a real sense, I think, in which it is effectively genetic: Jewish values and mindset inculcated so deeply that they resonate with all Jews, at a biological level, and are passed along to future generations.  The fixation with blood is one major aspect of this Jewish biological heritage.

So what? some may say.  Why do we care what religious Jews do in their synagogues, or what secular Jews think in their hearts?  Actually, it makes a huge difference, precisely because of the influence that such Jews have in American, and Western, society.

This is not the place to elaborate—I would refer readers to the recent compilation of my own writings, The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023)—but let me simply state the obvious:  Jews, Jewish interests, Jewish values, and Jewish thinking utterly dominate large sectors of Western society.  We need only mention high finance; Hollywood; media generally; the federal government; and academia.  Jews own or control up to 50 percent of the estimated $140 trillion in personal wealth in the US.  They provide 25 percent to 50 percent, or more, of campaign funding at the federal level; unsurprisingly, Jews are highly overrepresented in Biden’s cabinet and cabinet-level position, including the most powerful and influential positions (Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury; Chief of Staff.  (Biden also has Jewish in-laws and grandchildren, and Kamala Harris is married to a Jew.)  Not more than a handful of Democratic and Republican congressmen have the nerve to stand up to AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby generally.  Jews also have a stranglehold on Hollywood, American film production, the music business, and the news media; look at the reaction to Ye (Kanye West).  As for academia, forget about it; at last check, the eight Ivy League schools had seven Jewish presidents.  And nearly all major American universities, public or private, have Jewish regents, Jewish chancellors, Jewish contributors, and/or Jewish deans, not to mention massive over-representation in many disciplines, especially in the social sciences and humanities.

Consider this:  Why, for example, do we have so much blood and gore in our popular films?  Gratuitous violence is omnipresent in American films, in virtually all genres.  It is rarely necessary to tell a story; so, why is it there?  We know why:  Jewish writers, directors, and producers.  The Jewish fixation on blood materializes in their storytelling on the big screen.  For Jews, this is somehow fulfilling, satisfying, pleasurable—whereas for most normal people, the blood and gore is repulsive and grotesque.  And worse:  Jews are adjusted to all the blood deep down, and thus are unbothered by it; but ordinary non-Jews are sickened and appalled.  For many people, especially children, teens, and youth, all this blood is psychologically damaging.  Normal people are not psychically able to process such profuse depictions of bloody violence; they become desensitized, withdrawn, and depressed.  It damages interpersonal relations and harms their ability to openly communicate.  It makes them fearful, distrustful, and suspicious.[17]

Why do we in the United States find it so easy to initiate aggressive and violent military action around the world?  Why do our political and media establishments apparently take such glee in the slaughter of people in distant lands?  Why did the Jewish-American Secretary of State Madeline Albright state in 1996 that the American sanctions on Iraq, which killed some 500,000 Iraqi children, was “worth it”?  Why does the present American military budget exceed $1.25 trillion per year, taking into account all aspects of our supposed “defense”?  We know why.

Why are the Palestinians put in an impossible and intolerable situation by their Israeli overlords?  Why are they periodically slaughtered like sheep?  Why is the pointless and unwinnable war in Ukraine being promoted and sustained, spilling profuse amounts of Gentile blood?  We know why.

The Jewish bloodlust and blood-fascination has endless implications.  We must always remember the core Jewish truth here:  no blood, no salvation.  For most people, the spilling of blood is an evil; for Jews, it is a necessary precursor to salvation and “success.”  For most people, killing is wrong; for Jews, killing—as long as it’s not a Jew—is a good thing.  “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness,” said the Jewish writer of Hebrews.  As long as Jews are in charge, as long as they call the shots, blood will be spilled.  This is one constant in an otherwise turbulent world.

When contemplating the Jewish bloodlust and blood-obsession, I cannot help but recall Shakespeare’s warning in Macbeth:

Where we are,
There’s daggers in men’s smiles. The near in blood,
The nearer bloody.  (Act II, sc. 3)

“Where we are,” in the world today: the Jews are smiling; they are on top.  Sadly, “there’s daggers in [such] men’s smiles.”  They are all smiles, niceties, and good humor.  But don’t let them get too close—“the near in blood, the nearer bloody.”

I close with the words of Macbeth himself: “Get thee back; my soul is too much charged / With blood of thine already” (Act V, sc. 8).  How appropriate.  We might recast these words today as follows:  “Get thee back, Jews; our souls are too much charged with blood of thine already.”

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National Socialism.  His latest works include Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Steep Climb, and a new translation of For My Legionnaires.  He has also recently published the definitive critique Unmasking Anne Frank, and a new edition of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! Volume Two. All these books are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] S. Geller (1992), “Blood cult,” Prooftexts 12(2): 101.

[2] Blood and Belief (2007), p. 9.

[3] Optimal chances for pregnancy occur in the middle of a woman’s cycle rather than at the end, when the blood appears.  It is not impossible for conception to occur during menstruation, but it is very unlikely.

[4] Histories, Bk II, 36 and 104.

[5] “We learned in the Mishnah that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: ‘A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumciser’.”  Seder #2 (Moed), Tractate Shabbat, 133b,14 (text from www.sefaria.org).

[6] The phrase ‘blood covenant’ occurs one other time in the Bible, in Zechariah (“As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit”; 9:11)

[7] For an elaboration, see my various essays in The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023).

[8] Antichrist, sec. 44.

[9] For this and following citations, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[10] Homilies on the Jews, I.VI.7.

[11] Long out of print in German, the book has recently been released in a first-ever English translation: The Book of the Shulchan Aruch (2023; Clemens & Blair).  Cited quotations refer to this new edition.

[12] The original 2007 edition, in its original Italian language, was quickly pulled from circulation, to be replaced by a softer, “revised edition” the following year.  However, an English translation of the original 2007 edition was published in 2020 by Clemens & Blair; the following quotations refer to this edition.

[13] The word ‘Eucharist’ derives from the Greek eukharistos, meaning ‘good’ (eu-) + ‘favor’ (kharistos)—in other words, a ‘thanksgiving.’  It has nothing to do with the word ‘Christ,’ incidentally.

[14] We would do well to recall that Paul’s letters are traditionally dated to between 50 and 70 AD.  First Corinthians would likely have been composed around 53 AD, whereas the Gospels were written between 70 (Mark) and 95 AD (John).  Paul knew nothing of the Gospels because they did not exist in his lifetime.

[15] The fact that this is the only quotation of Jesus in all of Paul’s letters is astonishing.  It is almost as if Paul had no idea what Jesus actually said during his ministry.  But this is inconceivable if Paul’s life story is true.  He is happy to quote and reference the Old Testament ad nauseum, but quote Jesus?  No, not necessary…

[16] Lumen Gentium (1964), II.11.

[17] There is abundant research on this.  For a few examples, see: Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005), “The Influence of Violent Media on Children and Adolescents: A public-Health Approach.” Lancet, vol. 365, pp. 702-710.  Anderson, C. et al (2003). “Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 5.  And Krahe, B., et al (2011). “Desensitization to media violence: Links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 4.

Jewish Corruption in Ukraine

“At the same time, fifty Jewish families own 80% of all wealth. Where do you see the Ukrainian oligarch? I don’t know any. They are all Jews. Their wealth betrays their own bragging rights: Rolls-Royces, planes, castles, hotels, casinos owned in Monte Carlo. Aircraft and yachts under foreign flags. And, of course, they don’t pay taxes. And plants and factories were bought by them not at a real price, but stolen from the entire Ukrainian people.”
Serhiy Ratushniak, Former Mayor of Uzhhorod

With Russia now slowly escalating its ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine on the eve of its first anniversary, I find myself drawn once again to the complex but stark phenomenon of extreme Jewish corruption in the latter nation. While it’s become commonplace to note Volodymyr Zelensky’s Jewishness, and perhaps also that of Volodymyr Groysman, the first Prime Minister to serve under Zelensky, I have yet to read a detailed discussion of the major Jewish players in the ongoing saga of Ukrainian oligarchy and its political affiliates. If anything, the present conflict is a huge distraction from the fact that, for decades, the biggest threat to Ukraine hasn’t been Russia, but financiers and speculators operating with impunity within Ukraine’s borders to exploit ethnic Ukrainians and plunder their resources.

Speaking in general terms, of course, Ukraine is an extremely corrupt country, with the culture of fraud and graft stemming in large part from the Soviet legacy and saturating all levels of society. Crooks of all ethnic backgrounds are ubiquitous in the nation. Bribery is systematic, where it’s accepted as a basic fact of life by ordinary citizens and extends even to such mundane tasks as vehicle inspection. As well as infesting politics, bribery and other forms of corruption remain endemic in the police force, higher education, health care, and the justice system, with the result that Ukraine ranks alongside some of the worst African nations in Transparency International’s assessment of corruption perception. According to 2015 data, politically connected businesses accounting for less than 1 per cent of companies in Ukraine owned more than 25 per cent of all assets and accessed over 20 per cent of debt financing. In the capital-intensive mining, energy and transport sectors, politically connected businesses accounted for over 40 per cent of turnover and 50 per cent of assets.

Far from being the beacon of freedom presented to us now by the mass media, Ukraine is a nation bankrupt in social trust and well-accustomed to the yoke of exploitation. There has been little internal outcry over the massive trafficking of its women for sex, both inside and outside the country, with coastal cities such as Odessa becoming sex tourism hubs for the worst of the Turkish and Israeli middle classes. Ukraine now has the highest adult HIV prevalence outside Africa, with sexual contact outpacing injection drug use as the primary form of transmission since 2008. The National Institute on Drug Abuse points out that substance abuse in Ukraine has been at epidemic proportions for the last 15 years.

Ukraine is on multiple levels a deeply flawed and troubled state, and like any bloody carcass it has attracted its share of hyenas. I believe, however, that Jewish corruption in Ukraine, despite Jews only comprising around 0.5% of the Ukrainian population, is of a character significant enough to merit special attention. In the following essay I want to explore some of the key players and their interconnections, as well as to offer some thoughts on the reasons why anti-Jewish attitudes have not taken hold in Ukraine, and why they are unlikely to do so in the future.

How ‘Anti-Corruption’ Is Zelensky?

Now overshadowed by his reinvention as a kind of Second Coming of Winston Churchill, Zelensky’s first great transformation was that of a close associate of the worst of Ukraine’s oligarchs (Ihor Kolomoisky, discussed below) into an “anti-corruption” populist. Zelensky’s relationship with Kolomoisky goes back to around 2012, when Zelensky and the Jewish brothers Serhiy and Boris Shefir, began making content for Kolomoisky’s TV stations through their production production company, Kvartal 95. As is now well-known, Zelensky’s political ascent began after his starring role in the political satire ‘Servant of the People,’ which began airing on Kolomoisky’s 1+1 network in 2015. The 1+1 channel had been founded by another Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky. Servant of the People starred Zelensky as a school teacher whose anti-corruption rant in class is filmed by a student, goes viral, and wins him the presidency. Zelensky turned to real-world politics, capitalized on widespread public anger at corruption, and ended up winning the Presidency with ease just three-and-a-half years after the show’s launch.

Zelensky is entirely a media creation, a blank canvas upon which anything can be projected. Before the war, the German Council on Foreign Relations pointed out that “Zelensky has so far been very vague about his policies and vision for the future. So it has been extremely difficult to tell what he stands for or fact-check his largely policy-free statements in the way the experts have for other candidates. He rarely mentions facts.”

Zelensky’s 2019 campaign was dogged by doubts over his authenticity given his close association with Kolomoisky. Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs astutely observed that, even if Zelensky was earnest in his claims to oppose the corrupt, “he cannot govern without systema [the oligarchic structure] and will bow to its interests.” In the heat of the campaign, an ally of incumbent Petro Poroshenko (rumored to have a Jewish father), journalist Volodymyr Ariev (who also claims Jewish ancestry), published a chart on Facebook purporting to show that Zelensky and his television production partners were beneficiaries of a web of offshore firms, which they had set up beginning in 2012, that received $41M in funds from Kolomoisky’s Privatbank. Many of these allegations were proven correct after the leaking of the Pandora Papers, millions of files from 14 offshore service providers, to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

The documents show that Zelensky and his Jewish partners in Kvartal 95 set up a network of offshore firms dating back to at least 2012, the same year the company began making regular content for Ihor Kolomoisky. The offshores, which filtered Kolomoisky’s money through the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Belize, and Cyprus in order to avoid paying tax in Ukraine, were also used by Zelensky associates to purchase and own three prime properties in the center of London. The documents also show that just before he was elected, Zelensky gifted his stake in a key offshore company, the British Virgin Islands-registered Maltex Multicapital Corp., to Serhiy Shefir — soon to be his top presidential aide. And in spite of “giving up his shares,” the documents show that an arrangement was soon made that would allow the offshore to keep paying dividends to a company that now belongs to Zelensky’s wife.

Zelensky and Serhiy Shefir

Besides providing financial support during Ukraine’s 2019 election, Kolomoisky supplied Zelensky with cars, and the bulletproof Mercedes Zelensky used on the campaign trail was owned by Kolomoisky associate Timur Mindich — who is on the board of trustees of the Jewish Community of Dnipropetrovsk, a body of which Kolomoisky was president. Although Zelensky continued to deny that his relationship to Kolomoisky was anything but professional, the Kyiv Post reported in April 2019 that Zelensky traveled a total of 11 times to Geneva and an additional two times to Tel-Aviv, during precise periods when Kolomoisky was in these locations. Zelensky’s travel companions during these trips included Jewish oligarch and close Kolomoisky associate Gennadiy (Zvi Hirsch) Bogolyubov, and the brothers Hryhoriy and Ihor Surkis both whom have been accused of serious corruption. They are among the wealthiest people in Ukraine and are Jewish through their mother Rima Gorinshtein. The very Jewish character of these trips should come as no surprise given that, where possible, Zelensky likes to surround himself with Jewish aides. In the aftermath of the outbreak of war, for example, it emerged that he sought advice on public relations from two Likud-backing Israelis, Srulik Einhorn and Jonatan Urich.

Zelensky hasn’t exactly turned on the hand that fed him, and his rise coincided with the downfall of several of Kolomoisky’s opponents. After Zelensky became President, Kolomoisky’s nemesis at Ukraine’s central bank, Valeria Gontareva, was subjected to a sustained campaign of intimidation. Criminal proceedings were brought against her for alleged abuse of office during her time at the central bank, her Kiev flat was raided by the police, a car belonging to her daughter-in-law, also called Valeria Gontareva, was torched, and her house outside the Ukrainian capital was set ablaze and destroyed. Under Zelensky, Ukraine’s parliament passed a measure that prevented Kolomoisky from having to pay higher taxes on his mining operations, and prior to the start of the war with Russia all indications pointed to the renewed influence of interest groups opposed to reform. First, in March 2020, was the dismissal of the government of prime minister Oleksiy Honcharuk (who didn’t help his case by attending a concert headlined by an anti-Jewish heavy metal band), followed, a day later, by the removal from office of the reformist prosecutor-general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka. Then, in April, came the Constitutional Court’s blocking of judicial reforms, and a ruling by the same court, in October, that effectively paralyzed the work of the National Agency for Corruption Prevention. In July 2020 Zelensky forced the resignation of Yakov Smolii as National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) governor. After leaving his position, Smolii referred to “systematic political pressure” on the bank, and did not rule out a coincidence of interest between the President’s Office and Kolomoisky. He said that the President’s Office wanted to replace the NBU’s leadership with people it could control. Smolii’s resignation came shortly after Ukraine had received the first tranche of a new $5 billion IMF stand-by arrangement. A key condition for continued IMF support was the independence of the NBU, and the IMF had made it clear that it held Smolii and his team in high regard.

Seeking international assistance in the aftermath of Russia’s “special military operation,” Zelensky has done much to give the appearance of fighting corruption while actually doing very little. Western media and politicians in the last few weeks have lavished praise on Zelensky for a series of raids and dismissals tackling corruption in the country, but few charges have been brought and the raids have been perfectly timed with EU accession talks and attempts to obtain European financial and military assistance. Political commentator Yuriy Vishnevskyi pointed out the uselessness of the raid against Kolomoisky, stressing that “detectives knew perfectly well that they would most likely not find anything there, since Kolomoisky was not an official at [government bodies suspected of tax evasion]. It is doubtful that he compiled documents at home that would prove his involvement in criminal schemes.” Rumors that Zelensky has stripped Kolomoisky of his Ukrainian citizenship, along with the Ukrainian citizenship of Jewish oligarchs Hennadiy Korban and Vadim Rabinovich, have prompted counter-rumors that this is nothing more than a clever sleight of hand designed to free these figures from already weak anti-oligarch laws passed in 2022.

Ihor Kolomoisky – Supreme Parasite

Kolomoisky, who also holds Israeli and Cypriot citizenship, is probably one of the worst thieves to ever walk the earth, and there has been no greater parasite feeding on Ukrainians. Once named by the Center for Corruption and Organized Crime Research (OCCRP) as being in the top four most corrupt individuals on the planet, Kolomoisky used his ownership of PrivatBank to defraud customers of around $5.5 billion in deposits, which amounted to 40% of all private deposits in Ukraine. Although now banned from entering the United States, where he has numerous assets, Kolomoisky has never been arrested in Ukraine and Zelensky shows no indications of ever bringing him to justice. Regarded as criminal by almost anyone with a brain, Kolomoisky is a hero of the international Jewish community. In 2008 Kolomsoisky was elected President of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, and in 2010 he was elected president of the European Jewish Council.

In keeping with centuries of the same historical pattern, large-scale Jewish financial crime perpetrated by small numbers of key actors continues to benefit the general Jewish population. Jews internationally have benefited for years from Kolomoisky’s plundering of the Ukrainian people. In March 2021 it emerged that two Miami-based Jews, Mordechai Korf, 48, and Uri Laber, 49, were acting as Kolomoisky’s middlemen in the United States. As well as laundering his money in various assets, the pair donated more than $11 million to nearly 70 yeshivas and religious charities (Jewish Educational Media, Colel Chabad, among others) in Brooklyn and across the state of New York. Kolomoisky is also a listed donor for Yad Vashem. Both Korf and Laber also held shares in PrivatBank, and are reported by The Forward as having pumped “about $25 million into Jewish nonprofits between 2006 and 2018.” Kolomoisky is of course the patron of “Menorah,” the largest Jewish center in the world. Entirely appropriate given its existence is owed to international robber barons, the center is home to travel agencies and banks. The official website says that the building is something “every Dnipro resident can be proud of,” to which I can only reply that I’d hope so given that, willingly or not, some of the savings and deposits of every Dnipro resident went into its construction.

Menorah – Largest Jewish Community Center in the World

One of the best examples of how Kolomoisky conducts business is his ownership of Dnipro Airport. In 2009 Kolomoisky bought 99.45% of shares in the airport through his company Galtera. Under the terms of the investment agreement, Galtera was to invest UAH 882.1 million in the development of the airport, and had to hand over the runway, radio beacon system, and land plots to the state. By 2015, Galtera had invested only UAH 142,145, and failed to turn over any real estate to the government. A sequence of litigations began, but with Ukraine’s justice system fully in thrall to the oligarchy, no resolution was ever reached. Kolomoisky, meanwhile, made flying from the airport so expensive (one commentator explained that even short flights carried fees that would elsewhere take one to space) that the citizens of Dnipro overwhelmingly opted to drive three hours to Kharkiv rather than pay the airport’s extortionate and inflated prices. On the bright side, they have an absolutely gargantuan Jewish center they can be proud of.

Jewish Invisibility in Ukraine

The lack of outcry over Ukrainian money going into Jewish pockets might seem surprising to Western observers but is perfectly explainable. There have certainly been no shortage of Jews acting parasitically in Ukraine. In addition to Kolomoisky and others named above, Hennadiy Kernes, Pavel Fuks, Andriy Yermak (now Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine), Hennadiy Korban, Vadim Rabinovich, Alexander Feldman, and Victor Pinchuk have engaged in fraud, corruption, and the amassing of vast amounts of wealth and power at the expense of the Ukrainian people. In Ukraine, however, pronounced examples of corruption and oligarchy are also found among other ethnic minority groups like Muslim Tatars (e.g. Rinat Akhmetov) and among ethnic Ukrainians themselves. The country is so corrupt that even clear examples of ethnic cohesion, such as the overlapping Jewish circles of Zelensky and Kolomoisky, fade into a broader picture of socio-political decay.

Discussion of the particularities of Jewish corruption in Ukraine became more difficult in September 2021 when Zelensky signed a new law defining the concept of anti-Semitism and establishing punishment for transgressions including imprisonment up to five years. The new laws mean that outbursts such as that by Vasily Vovk and Nadiya Savchenko will become a thing of the past. Vovk, a retired general who held a senior reserve rank with the Security Service of Ukraine wrote in a 2017 Facebook post that Jews “aren’t Ukrainians and I will destroy you along with Rabinovich. I’m telling you one more time — go to hell, zhidi [kikes], the Ukrainian people have had it to here with you. Ukraine must be governed by Ukrainians.” In the same year, Savchenko, a fighter jet pilot who was elected to parliament in 2014 while she was still being held as a prisoner of Russia, said during an interview “I have nothing against Jews. I do not like ‘kikes.’” She later said Jews possess “80 percent of the power in Ukraine when they only account for 2 percent of the population.”

Investigations into Jewish criminality are also being hampered by accusations of anti-Semitism, as witnessed in the May 2020 case involving Mykhailo Bank, a senior police official in the Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine. As part of an investigation into “transnational and ethnic organized groups and criminal organizations,” Bank wrote to Yakov Zalischiker, the head of the Jewish community in the city of Kolomyia, demanding the names of all Jewish community members as well as those of foreign Jewish students staying in the city. Reading between the lines, one assumes that Bank had good reason to believe that these “transnational and ethnic organized groups and criminal organizations” were Jewish. Unfortunately for Bank, he was singled out by Eduard Dolinsky, Ukraine’s incarnation of the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, who portrayed the demand as implying an impending Holocaust. “This is called stigmatization,” complained Dolinsky. “They [the National Police] did not send such a letter to the Greek Catholics or the Orthodox to compile lists in connection with the fight against organized crime. They turned to the Jews. This shows deep xenophobia.” The case was further amplified by the involvement of Jewish politician Igor Fris, who personally lobbied Zelensky about the matter. The head of the Department of Strategic Investigations of the National Police of Ukraine, Andriy Rubel, and the head of the National Police, Ihor Klymenko, were both forced into groveling apologies. Within weeks Bank was spontaneously “discovered” to have been involved in corruption and was quickly fired.

Finally, since Kolomoisky was one of the main funders of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist groups like Right Sector, was linked with the Svoboda party, and was involved with the Azov Battalion, Ukrainian ultra-nationalism has a strangely non-ethnic quality; or rather, it is concerned more with defining itself as being against Russia than in pushing for any kind of “Ukraine for Ukrainians” platform. As such, Ukrainian ultra-nationalism has become a kind of aggressive civic nationalism, harmless to Jews and other minorities but incendiary enough to play a part in provoking the massive conflict currently absorbing the attention of the world.

What kind of Ukraine will emerge from the ruins remains to be seen. What seems certain is that luxury homes in Florida, London, Geneva, and Tel Aviv will long continue to host those who’ve fattened themselves on Ukrainian money, and who continue to hoard their stolen profits while tens of thousands of body bags continue their somber transit to the graveyards of Kiev and Moscow.

Rakib’s Retarded Rightist Rhetoric: How Men Can’t Be Women and Bangladeshis Can’t Be British

Thank Heavens for Rakib Ehsan! This insightful commentator on modern Western politics and culture has a Bangladeshi body and a British brain. 100%, innit! He’s a former “research fellow” for the Henry Jackson Society, a neo-conservative lobbying group, and now writes for everyone from the trans-skeptic Trotskyists at Spiked to the monarchophile mensches at the Jewish Chronicle. To watch him in full rhetorical flow is truly a stirring sight. For example, all right-thinking folk are agreed that mass migration from the corrupt, violent and diseased Third World has been an immeasurable boon for Britain. Equally, all right-thinking folk have to admit that there have been some problems with Third-World enrichment. You know, a suicide-bombing here (and here), and a decades-long epidemic of child-rape there (and there, there, there, there and there).

Bangladeshi body, British brain: the right-thinking rhetorician Rakib Ehsan

But fear not! Whenever a problem associated with Third-World folk occurs, Rakib Ehsan straps on his trusty Flame-Thrower of British Values and strides forth to solve it with a blast of fiery rhetoric. Take the very serious problem of Muslim rape-gangs preying on White women and girls all over Muslim-enriched England. Here’s Rakib’s fiery response:

This crisis can be ignored no longer. Politicians need to lead from the front. They need to show some moral and political gumption. To this end, the government should instruct all police forces and local councils to collect specific data — disaggregated by socio-demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity and sex — for all cases of known or suspected child sexual exploitation.

That is not happening at the moment. Indeed, it was recently reported that South Yorkshire Police have still been failing to routinely record the ethnic background of child sexual abuse suspects. Indeed, suspect ethnicity was missing in 67 per cent of cases recorded by South Yorkshire Police. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, given the significance of ethnicity in the grooming-gangs scandal. Too often politically correct identitarianism is getting in the way of protecting young, vulnerable members of the public. (Grooming gangs: the making of a national scandal, Spiked Online, 17th July 2022)

Hooray! Problem solved! Now take the even more serious problem of anti-Semitism in Britain’s vibrant Muslim community. Here’s Rakib’s fiery response:

So if the government is serious about tackling the growth of anti-Semitism among British Muslims, it needs to embark on an agenda of radical reform. This should include: identifying the parts of the country that are socially segregated, materially deprived and have a history of Islamist activity — so-called failed neighbourhoods. It should then implement localised social-cohesion and counter-extremism plans, and address the corrosive effect of official multiculturalism. This effort shouldn’t be a top-down state effort — that would be counterproductive. It should be led by local bodies — educational institutions, good-faith civic associations, social services and local police forces.

The government should also empower anti-Islamist British Muslims, who can play a key role in challenging anti-Semitism. After all, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of British Muslims are worried about Islamist extremism and do not support anti-Jewish views. For example, Muslims Against Anti-Semitism (MAAS) — a charity of which I’m proud to be a patron — is a good example of an interfaith organisation that works to cultivate stronger Muslim-Jewish relations in the UK. These are the kind of organisations that are deserving of more public backing and support. (Britain has a Muslim anti-Semitism problem, Spiked Online, 23rd January 2022)

Hooray! Problem solved again! Finally, take the woefully misguided official policy of multiculturalism, which was clearly revealed, Rakib says, in the way Muslims and Hindus “fought each other for days on end” last year in the heavily enriched English city of Leicester. Here’s his fiery response:

[Multiculturalism] is elevating the protection of group-specific identities over the needs of the most vulnerable. It is emphasising what divides us over what we have in common. And, in doing so, it is racialising and dividing society — and sowing conflict in our midst.

Diversity can be a strength. But only if it is bound by shared values, mutual obligations and a sense of common purpose. Without these essential ingredients for social cohesion, community relations in our diverse communities will disintegrate, with potentially disastrous results.

In 2023, we need to tackle the ideology of multiculturalism head-on. (In 2023, we need a reckoning with multiculturalism, Spiked Online, 21st December 2022)

Hooray! Problem solved yet again! Yes, all right-thinking folk read Rakib’s articles feeling a warm glow of optimism about Britain’s future. Okay, Muslims and other non-Whites are causing one or two problems, but you just have to look at Rakib himself to see how well non-Whites can assimilate when they try. Rakib Ehsan is British to the core, bursting with patriotism, and passionate about improving life for all of his fellow Britons, whatever their color and whatever their creed.

A golden and glorious prospect

Well, all right-thinking folk regard Rakib Ehsan as British to the core, that is. But by “right-thinking folk” I mean retarded rightists who accept his bullshit about Britain being a proposition nation based purely on values that anyone in the world can embrace. I don’t know whether Ehsan sincerely believes his own bullshit, but I do know that he is telling retarded rightists exactly what they want to hear. For example, in an article called “Will ethnic minorities be next to abandon Labour?” he tantalized them with the golden and glorious prospect of non-Whites finally recognizing that the Conservative party is their natural home. But that isn’t going to happen, of course. Nor is any of the tough action against rape-gangs, Islamism, and multiculturalism demanded by Ehsan in his articles. He’s full of posture and pretence, but reality does occasionally peep through his rhetoric. Take the opening lines of one of his articles for the Trotskyist libertarians at Spiked Online: “Britain remains a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. But 2022 served up several brutal reminders of how quickly social cohesion can unravel under the impact of the divisive ideology of multiculturalism.”

Ehsan is admitting that mass immigration has turned Britain into a place where “social cohesion” can quickly unravel. That’s not a “successful” society. Still less is it a stable society. Nor does Ehsan mention that those who most promote “the divisive ideology of multiculturalism” are also those who most promote mass immigration from the Third World. And look at his admission elsewhere that “the British state [has] turned a blind eye to the rape of thousands of children” by “mainly Pakistani-heritage perpetrators.” Again, how on earth can he describe Britain as a “successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith society” when White children are being raped here on an industrial scale by brown-skinned Muslims? Of course, he doesn’t point out the obvious: that the rapes would not be happening if the Muslim “perpetrators” weren’t on British soil. Nor would the Muslim terrorism and Muslim anti-Semitism he denounces and demands tough action against in other articles.

As far as I know, Rakib Ehsan has never denounced the horrible genetic diseases caused by consanguineous marriage among Muslims, but that is yet another pathology that exists in Britain only because of mass immigration. So is the drain on the British economy caused by non-Whites who contribute much less in taxes than they take in services. The truth is that Third-World folk are very bad for Britain, but Ehsan can’t admit that because he would also have to admit the truth about himself.

Rhetoric vs reality: a transwoman and trans-Briton compared with the real thing (Ehsan is next to the White genius George Boole)

And the truth about Rakib Ehsan is very simple. He isn’t British. Instead, he’s what you might call trans-British and trans-Western: he claims an identity that he can never possess. That’s the great irony of Rakib’s regular appearances at Spiked, which incessantly condemns the lunacies and lies of transgenderism even as it promotes the even more harmful lunacies and lies of trans-Westernism. Just as “transwomen” claim to be women, but aren’t women and never will be, so Rakib Ehsan claims to be British, but isn’t British and never will be. Instead, he’s Bangladeshi and always will be. His residence on British soil doesn’t change that, which is why he needs to pretend that Britishness depends on ideas, not on biology. Here he is celebrating the betrayal of Brexit as Britain’s hostile elite ignore the wishes of White voters and open Britain’s borders even wider to the Third World:

For all the talk of post-Brexit xenophobia, or of the UK government pursuing a ‘white nationalist’ agenda, the official migration figures paint a very different picture. In the first full year of Britain’s post-Brexit immigration system, following the end of EU freedom of movement, the number of non-EU migrants arriving in Britain has risen sharply. These migrants are from predominantly non-white countries, and there have been notable increases from Commonwealth countries, such as India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Meanwhile, inward migration from predominantly white EU member states has dropped.

Although EU migrants face more restrictions than before, Brexit Britain’s skills-based immigration regime has actually liberalised the UK’s approach to the rest of the world. And this has shifted the demographics of inbound migrants towards the English-speaking Commonwealth and other non-EU allies with shared historical and cultural ties.

According to the Home Office, Indian professionals accounted for the largest number of skilled visas granted last year, with 67,839 issued — a 14 per cent increase from 2019. Brexit is clearly not about pulling up the drawbridge and turning Britain into an isolated island, cut off from global movement. On the contrary, the latest immigration figures are indicative of an outward-looking, post-Brexit internationalism, which is at ease with rising levels of migrants and students from the Indian subcontinent, west Africa, North America and Australasia. (The myth of post-Brexit xenophobia, Spiked Online, 24th April 2022)

Ehsan claims to be a patriotic Briton even as he celebrates the flooding of Britain by non-Whites from the corrupt, violent and diseased Third World. The flood is very bad for Britain, but good for Ehsan himself, because more Third-World folk mean that he stands out less as an alien intruder. Racial differences aren’t as absolute and easily defined as the anatomical differences between men and women, but there are strong parallels between transgenderism and trans-Britishness. Just as men can never become pregnant and give birth, so Bangladeshis like Ehsan could never have created the Industrial Revolution. With their low average IQ and creativity, Bangladeshis will never contribute to the world in the many and varied ways achieved by the White British.

Mass murder and mass rape

Low-IQ Pakistanis will never contribute to the world like that either. But Pakistanis certainly contribute an abundance of pathologies to the world. And if Rakib Ehsan were an honest man and truly wanted to help Britain, he’d write about the pathologies visited on his own homeland by Pakistanis:

The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century. In an attempt to crush forces seeking independence for East Pakistan, the West Pakistani military regime unleashed a systematic campaign of mass murder which aimed at killing millions of Bengalis, and likely succeeded in doing so. (Bangladesh Genocide Archive)

Pakistanis also committed mass rape in what would become Bangladesh. Mass murder and mass rape were also seen in the Armenian Genocide against Armenian Christians committed by Turkish Muslims under the possible control of crypto-Jews, but rape wasn’t part of the Holodomor, the genocide against Ukrainian Christians overseen by the disproportionately Jewish secret police of the Soviet Union (see Kevin MacDonald’s “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”). Curiously enough, the genocides in Armenia, Ukraine and Bangladesh go entirely unremarked on Britain’s annual Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD), which also commemorates “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.” And there is no mention on HMD that the genocide in Darfur is also being committed by Muslims.

Muslim rape-gangs are rehearsing for genocide

In other words, Holocaust Memorial Day is deliberately concealing the propensity of Muslims and Jews to commit mass murder. Rakib Ehsan could correct that by writing a hard-hitting article about the Bangladesh Genocide and linking it to the Armenian Genocide. But I’m sure he never will write such an article. If he did, he would benefit the White British but harm himself and his fellow Muslims. And how would he benefit the White British? Well, he would be warning us about what will happen here if Muslims are allowed to carry on growing in numbers, arrogance, and power. The genocides in Armenia and Bangladesh show what Muslims are capable of. And the Muslim rape-gangs of modern Britain are rehearsing for more Muslim genocide against the White British. Rakib Ehsan doesn’t want to warn the White British about what Muslims are capable of. Instead, he wants to carry on pretending that all will be well when the right policies are finally put in place and the British government finally takes the tough action that he has demanded in article after article.

Ehsan also wants to carry on serving Jewish interests, because he knows that serving Jewish interests will ensure he continues to earn a good living as he postures and pretends for his audience of retarded rightists. As I mentioned above, he’s a former “research fellow” for the Henry Jackson Society, a neo-conservative lobbying group that thinks the solution to Muslim pathologies is not an end to migration by Muslims but an ever-stronger surveillance and security state. Rakib Ehsan thinks the same. He is not British and his rhetoric for retarded rightists is very bad for Britain. But I have to be honest myself and admit that I’ve sacrificed reality for rhetorical convenience in the article above. “Britishness” is an artificial concept and Britain is not a genuine nation. Instead, it’s an uneasy marriage between the four (and more) genuine nations of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

In an ideal world, these four White nations would be independent allies. As it is, all of them are slowly submerging beneath a non-White flood of alien invaders. Or not so slowly, in the case of already independent southern Ireland, whose treacherous elite have opened its borders to the Third World and peddled lying propaganda like “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” But in opening the borders, the elite have woken the spirit of the only true Irish: the White Irish. Resistance is beginning in Ireland, dominated by working-class folks while their liberal compatriots would rather appear virtuous. More will follow in the rest of the British Isles. Rakib’s retarded rightist rhetoric will not hold back reality much longer.

The Way of the Red-Pilled

Today we often hear of persons becoming “red-pilled” while others remain “blue pilled.” The expressions originally sprang from the widely popular science fiction action film “The Matrix” (1999) starring Keanu Reeves as “Neo” and Laurence Fishburne as “Morpheus.”

The movie, according to Wikipedia, “depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside the Matrix, a simulated reality that intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source.” “Neo” is given the choice between taking the blue pill or the red pill. If he takes the blue pill, he simply returns to his old life and his old way of thinking in which he believes all that his masters want him to believe.

If he takes the red pill, his eyes are opened to see things as they truly are, a world he never knew existed. In doing so, he’ll learn just “how deep the rabbit hole goes.” “Neo,” of course, takes the red pill but not before he is warned by Morpheus: “Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

Yet what exactly is the “Matrix”? Morpheus defines it as “the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” Those who have become red-pilled, then, are likewise persons who recognize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes. They see things as they really are and not as the government nor as prevailing opinions would have us believe.

Such persons now perceive the lies they’ve been fed their entire lives. They see the ‘system’ for what it is, and they recognize that it does not have their best interests at heart. They have broken from the prevailing worldview which most people share. They tend to be anti-establishment in their thinking and political dissidents. They are distrustful of their own government and its complicit media. Like the wizard behind the curtain who uses illusions, sleight-of-hand and artful flourishes to deceive the gullible masses, those who are red-pilled have broken from such delusions. They are now free.

Persons who have taken the blue pill, in contrast, are those content with whatever they have been told throughout their lives. Although they can be creative and even insightful at times, their entire view of life, politics, and the world around them is couched within a modernist or secularist perspective. They tend to be socially and politically liberal. They accept the essential foundations of a globalist worldview, and do not challenge it. The term they have appropriated for themselves is “woke,” meaning social awareness, being alert to social issues such as racism, discrimination, and injustice. They are militantly consumed with dissolving the nuclear family, abolishing capitalism, eliminating religion — especially from the public square, promoting gay, lesbian and Transgender rights, and raising children to be gender neutral. They stand firmly opposed to the traditional values of western civilization which is grounded on marriage between a man and a woman, the family, the importance of religion (however conceived), patriarchy, the reality of racial differences, including the importance of racial and cultural homogeneity of one’s nation.

I am using metaphorical expressions, of course, but it helps to illustrate the great contrast between red and blue pilled persons and how they interpret the world.

Like most people, my journey to the red pill came in stages. It began in 2000 when strangely enough I happened to read an article about race realism in of all places a liberal Bohemian newspaper in Southern California! The editor explained that while he did not agree with all the conclusions of the author, he thought his case was so well stated that he felt obligated to make it available to his readers. This would never occur in today’s political climate, of course, but things were not as badly radicalized twenty-three years ago as they are now. I carried that newspaper around for at least six months and read it numerous times. I had never heard such truths, but it made complete sense. It provided a small framework in which I could hang my thoughts about racial differences. In the past, I implicitly recognized that Blacks were different than Whites, but I couldn’t quite articulate it in ways that made sense. My racial equality assumptions muddied up the waters so badly that I couldn’t see what should have been patently obvious. That particular article (author unknown), thankfully, set me on a path that would eventually lead to many other ‘naughty’ truths.

Yet it wasn’t until 2002 when I read Pat Buchanan’s book, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (St. Martin’s Press), that my eyes were finally opened. It was revolutionary to say the least, and I was able to make better sense of racial issues, especially those pertaining to mass non-White immigration into Europe and America. Jared Taylor’s website, American Renaissance, also played a major role in filling out and making sense of the racial puzzle which I am grateful for.

The point being that the path to the red pill often occurs in stages. Rarely does it occur overnight or in one dramatic event. It’s usually a series of events, seemingly unconnected, that bring us to the point of considering ideas we had not previously entertained.

I have wondered why more people are not red-pilled. How could they not be when there are so many reasons to believe we have been lied to about almost everything? Our government lies to us constantly. Our colleges and universities have lied to their students for decades. Our nation’s most prominent newspapers have a long history of either featuring articles containing half-truths or outright lies to the American people. Our history books often have a political agenda that outweighs the need to present accurate history.

The sad truth is that most people are content to live with a blue-pilled mindset, to see things just as the media dictates. They have no interest in thinking differently or in challenging the status-quo because they are not even aware that there exists competing worldviews or alternative viewpoints. Even if they did, it would matter little to them. They are not inquisitive by nature nor are they particularly openminded. Their thoughts are limited to that which is earthly and temporal. They do not ask the deeper questions of life, nor does it bother them in the least that they possess no appetite for such matters. They are, as the old saying goes, “A mile wide and an inch deep,” meaning shallow or lacking depth in their thoughts and opinions. The challenging or probing questions from those who are red-pilled is dismissed by them as mere quibbling over insignificant matters.

The red-pilled way of life is largely unpopular because such truths are disturbing and take us out of our comfort zones. It leaves us with the real possibility of knowing that we have been wrong and have misunderstood reality. For many people this is too much to bear. They want to be liked, to have the approval of their friends, family and business associates. They care more about what others think of them.

Yet for those who have become red-pilled, truth is paramount! Thus, the kind of person who is red-pilled is, generally, a truth seeker. Granted, there are going to be degrees to this depending on the person and their intellectual acumen. But overall, the red-pilled person seeks to know and understand the truth. They have little patience for lies, no matter how pretty they might be painted.

The red-pilled way of life is also often costly in terms of losing friends, being popular and widely received by others, and there is always the looming threat to one’s employment and finances. The Left has made it so due to their intolerance of other viewpoints which threaten their foundations. The federal government, as one might expect, looks the other way while Bolshevik Leftists seek every avenue to silence, vilify, and physically attack their opponents.

I am thinking of such dissidents as the prolific author, Harry Elmer Barnes, who challenged and refuted the court historians in his day over inconvenient truths surrounding World War II and its aftermath. The late David Hoggan, the historian who became a pariah to the academic establishment because he dared to set the record straight showing that Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were the real warmongers rather than Adolf Hitler (see his The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed and his later work, The Unnecessary War: 1939-1945 Germany Must Perish).

Harry Elmer Barnes

Germar Rudolf, the brilliant German chemist, has been arrested numerous times and has endured severe persecution by the authorities because he has academically challenged the Holocaust narrative in a host of publications.

Special mention must be made of the late Canadian German, Ernst Zundel, who suffered multiple trials and imprisonments because he published literature critical of the Holocaust. His house was even burned down because of what he dared to say.

Zundel and many others like him, such as Monika Schaefer and the 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, have been tried and imprisoned by the German authorities not because they stole from or physically harmed anyone, but because they expressed their opinions. The authorities strike hard against such dissidents because they upset the narrative which all are expected to believe without question. Their lies are on such shaky ground that even 94-year-old grandmothers must be silenced and imprisoned so as not arouse inquiries from the sheep.

Ursula Haverbeck

There is also the eminent British historian, David Irving, whose books are praised for their historical accuracy and attention to first-hand sources. Yet because he mildly challenged some aspects of the Holocaust story and maintained that Germany’s Chancellor never officially issued an order to exterminate the Jewish people, he has been attacked, ridiculed, jailed, sued, and chased down by his detractors (see his Hitler’s War).

And then there is our own Kevin MacDonald who has been constantly maligned and attacked for over two decades because he wrote a scholarly book documenting Jewish power in America and the cultural subversion they have engaged in since at least the 1930s (see his The Culture of Critique).

Once one becomes fully red-pilled, one cannot unsee what has already been seen. The great truths concerning racial differences, Black dysfunction and criminality, third-world immigration, the great Covid ‘plandemic,’ Europe’s migrant invasion, the truth behind 9-11, Jewish cultural subversion, Pearl Harbor, World Wars I and II including the atrocities committed against the German people after the war, the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the World Economic Forum and its earth-shattering plans, including the truth about the Austrian corporal, and a plethora of other subjects are so startling and revolutionary that one cannot return to their old ways of viewing the world as they once did.

David Irving

And this is precisely why book banning, shadow banning, and doxing those who spread dissenting social and political viewpoints are so vigorously pursued by our enemies. They are unwilling to engage dissidents in open debate for all to see and for people to decide for themselves because they know, perhaps intuitively, that their position has little if any evidential merit. It’s much safer to censor their opponents than risk the seeds of doubt that will surely spread if the public is given alternative paradigms. There can be little success in controlling people when they are given the entire truth.

On a practical note, sharing red-pilled truths requires tactfulness, wisdom and patience. I have seen a tendency among zealous red-pillers to ridicule and purity spiral with others who may not quite be where they are in terms of understanding all the issues. They mock those who adhere to racial differences, but who haven’t yet arrived at the Jewish Question.

In my own case, it took several years of much reading and carefully thinking through the JQ before I was persuaded by it. This was not due my obstinance against the truth, but rather because I wanted to be certain that I truly understood the issues at hand. I didn’t want to deceive myself nor others.

Civic Nationalists are similarly ridiculed because, while good intentioned perhaps, they come from an intellectual framework that assumes the validity of the current system. They think it merely needs to be reformed rather than replaced by something that truly accounts for racial differences and works to secure a future for Whites and their posterity.

Yet Civic Nationalists are often on board with some of what we believe and want for our country. Yes, they are still stuck in an old paradigm that has proven not to work, but they are generally politically conservative, and stand opposed to the Left’s degeneracy. What sense is there in alienating them because they have not yet arrived where we are in understanding some of the deeper truths about race and other matters? Can White Nationalists in the U.S. really afford dismissing massive numbers of Whites who may not have progressed to where we are at this point?

Christians, likewise, who may not yet be racially conscious are often vilified as “Christ-cucks” and other epithets. Yet what sense does it make for us to alienate huge numbers of White Christians throughout America’s Bible Belt when in large measure they hold to very much the same traditional values that we hold dear? Rather than express hostility toward them, wouldn’t it be more prudent to try to reach and reason with them? You’d be surprised how many of them would be receptive to our message if treated politely and respectfully. As the old saying goes, “You can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

Thus, there is the need to be patient with others who are still struggling through many of these issues. And it’s important always to recognize that what may be rejected today, might be accepted tomorrow as both experience and circumstances combine to awaken our people to reality.

Finally, there is the need to be cautious of becoming so black-pilled that one despairs and is thereby rendered ineffective for our cause. There is plenty to be concerned about, no doubt, and it’s easy to become depressed and hopeless when we witness the condition of our country and the blindness of our own people. Despite this there are still reasons to be hopeful.

A growing number of Whites are waking up, and the federal government along with its street shock troops of Antifa and BLM are doing their best to vilify all White people which only serves to drive them to our camp. Truths such as the ‘great replacement’ are being more widely discussed than ever before. Patriotic White Americans are gradually losing their patriotism knowing full well that their own government is unabashedly anti-White and corrupt to the core. The Left has shoved the most deviant and imbecilic doctrines down our collective throats which has provoked many Whites to fight back. This is not something they would have done ten or fifteen years ago. But things have changed. The Left has also directly targeted our children with their LGBTQ propaganda which has caused a whole lot of momma bears to shake up those school district meetings.

The more the Left pushes the proverbial envelope, the more our people awaken from their racial and cultural slumber. The Left will not stop. They will not give up. They will not come to their senses. They are determined to destroy all that is good, beautiful and decent. They want to burn it all down and replace us and our entire country with their Utopian paradise. Yet the more they pursue their demented dreams, the more they will find a growing resistance among us.

People can only put up with complete insanity for so long. Most of us just want to be left alone. We want our families. We want peace. There is every reason, then, to be hopeful that the Left will inevitably cancel itself out.

There is also good reason to believe that our endless and unpayable national debt, along with our continuous warmongering abroad, will eventually cause this evil system to collapse under the weight of its own hubris and stupidity.